textbf/newline (SuperHyperGirth Approaches On The Super Challenges On The Cancer's Recognition in The Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

1
SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on 2
the Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
ABSTRACT 9
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 10
SuperHyperGirth and extreme SuperHyperGirth . Two different types of 11
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 12
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 15
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 18
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 19
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 20
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 21
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 22
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 23
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 24
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “extreme 25
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. 26
Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on 27
theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue 28
this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions and some 29
problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) 30
for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 31
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 32
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have 33
a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for 34
an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of 35
an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme SuperHyperEdges 36
such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an extreme SuperHyperEdge 37
and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme SuperHyperVertex in an 38
extreme SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial 39
C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 40
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum 41
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s 42
no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to 43
have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its 44
1/269
coefficient; an extreme SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an 45
extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 46
contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number of the maximum 47
extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme 48
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an extreme 49
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme 50
SuperHyperVertex in an extreme SuperHyperEdge and the extreme power is extremely 51
corresponded to its extreme coefficient; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for 52
an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 53
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 54
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have 55
a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) 56
for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality 57
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme 58
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an 59
extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme 60
SuperHyperVertex in an extreme SuperHyperEdge; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth 61
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 62
the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of 63
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices 64
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 65
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is 66
corresponded to its coefficient; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial 67
C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 68
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number 69
of the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme 70
cardinality extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex 71
not to in an extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 72
an extreme SuperHyperVertex in an extreme SuperHyperEdge and the extreme power is 73
extremely corresponded to its extreme coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 74
δ−SuperHyperGirth is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality 75
such that either of the following expressions hold for the (extreme) cardinalities of 76
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and 77
|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 78
δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 79
δ−SuperHyperDefensive; an extreme δ−SuperHyperGirth is a maximal extreme of 80
SuperHyperVertices with maximum extreme cardinality such that either of the following 81
expressions hold for the extreme cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there 82
are: |S ∩ N (s)|extreme > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|extreme + δ; and 83
|S ∩ N (s)|extreme < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|extreme + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 84
extreme δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an extreme 85
δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “extreme” version of a SuperHyperGirth . 86
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperGirth more 87
understandable. For the sake of having extreme SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to 88
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperGirth ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 89
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 90
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 91
SuperHyperGirth . It’s redefined an extreme SuperHyperGirth if the mentioned Table 92
holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 93
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The extreme SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The 94
Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The 95
SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 96
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 97
2/269
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of 98
Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the 99
next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperGirth . It’s the 100
main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 101
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 102
SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperGirth” but otherwise, it isn’t 103
a SuperHyperGirth . There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 104
definition titled a “SuperHyperGirth ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and 105
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 106
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperGirth . For the sake of having an extreme 107
SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “extreme 108
SuperHyperGirth” and a “extreme SuperHyperGirth ”. The SuperHyperVertices and 109
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 110
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 111
Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “extreme SuperHyperGraph” if 112
the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperGirth are redefined to a “extreme 113
SuperHyperGirth” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “extreme” version of 114
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get extreme type-results to make an 115
extreme SuperHyperGirth more understandable. Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph. 116
There are some extreme SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 117
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 118
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “extreme SuperHyperPath”, 119
“extreme SuperHyperCycle”, “extreme SuperHyperStar”, “extreme 120
SuperHyperBipartite”, “extreme SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “extreme 121
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “extreme 122
SuperHyperGirth” where it’s the strongest [the maximum extreme value from all the 123
SuperHyperGirth amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 124
SuperHyperGirth .] SuperHyperGirth . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 125
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 126
Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. 127
It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 128
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 129
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 130
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 131
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 132
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 133
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 134
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 135
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 136
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 137
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 138
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 139
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “extreme SuperHyperGraph”. In this 140
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 141
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 142
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 143
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 144
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 145
the SuperHyperModel is called “extreme”. In the future research, the foundation will be 146
based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 147
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 148
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 149
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 150
3/269
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 151
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 152
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be extreme 153
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 154
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 155
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 156
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by 157
an extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 158
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 159
either the longest SuperHyperGirth or the strongest SuperHyperGirth in those extreme 160
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperGirth, called SuperHyperGirth, and the 161
strongest SuperHyperGirth, called extreme SuperHyperGirth, some general results are 162
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 163
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 164
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 165
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 166
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with extreme 167
SuperHyperGirth theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and extreme SuperHyperGraphs theory 168
are proposed. 169
Keywords: extreme SuperHyperGraph, (extreme) SuperHyperGirth, Cancer’s 170
extreme Recognition 171
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 172
1 Background 173
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 174
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 175
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 177
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 178
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 179
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 180
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 181
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 182
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 183
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 184
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 185
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 186
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 187
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 188
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 189
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 190
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 191
majority of notions. 192
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 193
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 194
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 195
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 196
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 197
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 198
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 199
4/269
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 200
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 201
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 202
based on initial background. 203
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 204
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 205
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 206
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 207
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 208
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 209
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 210
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 211
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 212
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 213
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 214
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 215
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 216
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 217
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 218
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 219
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 220
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 221
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 222
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 223
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 224
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 225
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 226
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 227
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 228
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 229
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 230
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 231
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 232
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 233
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 234
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 235
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 236
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 237
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 238
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 239
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 240
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 241
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 242
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 243
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 244
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 245
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 246
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 247
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 248
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 249
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 250
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 251
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 252
5/269
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 253
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 254
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 255
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 256
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 257
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 258
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 259
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 260
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 261
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 262
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 263
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 264
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 265
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 266
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 267
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 268
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 269
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 270
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 271
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 272
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 273
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 274
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 275
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 276
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 277
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 278
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 279
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 280
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 281
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 282
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 283
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 284
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 285
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 286
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 287
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 288
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 289
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 290
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 291
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 292
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 293
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 294
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 295
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 296
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 297
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 298
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 299
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 300
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 301
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 302
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 303
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 304
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 305
6/269
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 306
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 307
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 308
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 309
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 310
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 311
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 312
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 313
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 314
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 315
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 316
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 317
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 318
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 319
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 320
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 321
2 Motivation and Contributions 322
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 323
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 324
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 325
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 326
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 327
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 328
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 329
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 330
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 331
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 332
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 333
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 334
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 335
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 336
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 337
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 338
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 339
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 340
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 341
called “extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 342
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 343
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 344
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 345
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 346
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 347
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 348
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 349
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 350
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 351
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 352
formally called “ SuperHyperGirth” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 353
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 354
for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 355
7/269
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 356
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 357
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 358
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 359
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be extreme 360
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 361
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 362
some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 363
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an extreme extreme 364
SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 365
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the optimal 366
SuperHyperGirth or the extreme SuperHyperGirth in those extreme SuperHyperModels. 367
Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 368
extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since 369
it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 370
SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s 371
the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 372
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 373
find the “ amount of SuperHyperGirth” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells 374
based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 375
SuperHyperGirth” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 376
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 377
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 378
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 379
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 380
SuperHyperGirth” and “extreme SuperHyperGirth” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 381
“extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 382
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 383
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 384
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 385
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 386
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 387
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 388
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 389
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and extreme SuperHyperGraph are 390
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 391
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 392
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 393
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperGirth and extreme 394
SuperHyperGirth, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperGirth” and “extreme 395
SuperHyperGirth”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order to make 396
sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and extreme 397
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 398
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 399
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to 400
origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend 401
the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and extreme SuperHyperGraph, 402
in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on extreme 403
SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and 404
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section 405
“General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are 406
8/269
well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, 407
“General Results”, “ SuperHyperGirth”, “extreme SuperHyperGirth”, “Results on 408
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 409
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 410
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 411
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperGirth”. The 412
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 413
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 414
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 415
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 416
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 417
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 418
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 419
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 420
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 421
3 Preliminaries 422
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 423
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 424
Definition 3.1 (extreme Set). (Ref. [42],Definition 2.1,p.87). 425
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then

the extreme set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}
+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 426
+
]− 0, 1 [. 427
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued extreme Set). (Ref. [45],Definition 6,p.2). 428
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

single valued extreme set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership
function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership
function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be
written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued extreme set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued extreme set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
9/269
Definition 3.5 (extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [44],Definition 3,p.291). 429
Assume V 0 is a given set. an extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 430
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 431
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued extreme subsets of V 0 ; 432
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 433
1, 2, . . . , n); 434
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued extreme subsets of V ; 435
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 436
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 437
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 438
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 439
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 440
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 441
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 442
Here the extreme SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the extreme SuperHyperVertices 443
(NSHV) Vj are single valued extreme sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the 444
degree of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of 445
falsity-membership the extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the extreme 446
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of 447
truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of 448
falsity-membership of the extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the extreme 449
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of 450
extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the 451
sets V and E are crisp sets. 452
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 453
(Ref. [44],Section 4,pp.291-292). 454
Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). The 455
extreme SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the extreme SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) 456
Vi of extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be characterized as 457
follow-up items. 458
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 459
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 460
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 461
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 462
HyperEdge; 463
10/269
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 464
SuperEdge; 465
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 466
SuperHyperEdge. 467
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 468
types of general forms of extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 469
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [43], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 470
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 471
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 472
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 473
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 474
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 475
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 476
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued extreme set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued extreme set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 477
Assume V 0 is a given set. an extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 478
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 479
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued extreme subsets of V 0 ; 480
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 481
1, 2, . . . , n); 482
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued extreme subsets of V ; 483
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 484
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 485
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 486
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 487
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 488
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 489
11/269
Here the extreme SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the extreme SuperHyperVertices 490
(NSHV) Vj are single valued extreme sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the 491
degree of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of 492
falsity-membership the extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the extreme 493
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of 494
truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of 495
falsity-membership of the extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the extreme 496
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of 497
extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the 498
sets V and E are crisp sets. 499
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 500
(Ref. [44],Section 4,pp.291-292). 501
Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). The 502
extreme SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the extreme SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) 503
Vi of extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be characterized as 504
follow-up items. 505
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 506
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 507
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 508
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 509
HyperEdge; 510
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 511
SuperEdge; 512
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 513
SuperHyperEdge. 514
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 515
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 516
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 517
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 518
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 519
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 520
have more understandable. 521
Definition 3.13. Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph. There are some 522
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 523
(i). It’s extreme SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 524
amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 525
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 526
given SuperHyperEdges; 527
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 528
SuperHyperEdges; 529
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 530
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 531
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 532
12/269
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 533
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 534
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 535
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 536
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 537
common SuperVertex. 538
Definition 3.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph

(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and extreme
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called an extreme extreme SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from extreme 539
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of 540
following conditions hold: 541
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 542
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 543
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 544
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 545
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 546
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 547
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 548
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 549
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 550
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 551
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the extreme extreme SuperHyperPath s). 552
Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). an

extreme extreme SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1
to extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices
(NSHV) and extreme SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 553
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 554
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 555
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 556
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called extreme 557
SuperHyperPath . 558
Definition 3.16. ((extreme) SuperHyperGirth). 559
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 560
13/269
(i) an extreme SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 561
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 562
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges in 563
the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperEdges and extreme 564
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the extreme SuperHyperCycle; 565
(ii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 566
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 567
the extreme SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 568
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 569
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 570
SuperHyperCycle; 571
(iii) an extreme SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an 572
extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 573
contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number of the maximum 574
extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges of an extreme 575
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 576
SuperHyperEdges and extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 577
extreme SuperHyperCycle and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 578
coefficient; 579
(iv) a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 580
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 581
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 582
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 583
SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 584
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 585
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 586
the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 587
(v) an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an extreme 588
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an 589
extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme 590
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 591
extreme SuperHyperCycle; 593
(vi) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 594
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 595
the extreme SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 596
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 597
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 598
SuperHyperCycle; 599
(vii) an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 600
an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 601
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme 602
number of the maximum extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 603
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 604
extreme SuperHyperCycle and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 606
coefficient; 607
(viii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 608
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 609
14/269
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 610
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 611
SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 612
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 613
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 614
the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 615
Definition 3.17. ((extreme/neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperGirth). 616
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 617
(i) an δ−SuperHyperGirth is an extreme kind of extreme SuperHyperGirth such 618
that either of the following expressions hold for the extreme cardinalities of 619
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 620
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 621
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 622
(ii) an neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperGirth is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 623
SuperHyperGirth such that either of the following neutrosophic expressions hold 624
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 625
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 626
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is an neutrosophic 627
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 628
For the sake of having an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to 629
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 630
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 631
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 632
Definition 3.18. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 633
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 634
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 635
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 636
understandable. 637
Definition 3.19. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 638
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 639
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 640
15/269
perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.19)

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic 641
SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 642
SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 643
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) 644
holds. 645
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 646
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 647
more neutrosophicly understandable. 648
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to “redefine” 649
the neutrosophic notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. The SuperHyperVertices 650
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 651
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 652
Definition 3.20. Assume a SuperHyperGirth. It’s redefined an extreme 653
SuperHyperGirth if the Table (3) holds. 654
4 Extreme SuperHyperGirth 655
The extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme SuperHyperGirth, is up. Thus the 656
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGirth, S is up. The obvious simple extreme 657
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth, not: S is an extreme 658
SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices in 659
a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 660
the only non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 661
“extreme SuperHyperGirth” 662
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 663
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, 664
is only and only S in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a 665
illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only non-obvious simple extreme 666
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperGirth amid those obvious[non-obvious] 667
16/269
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 668
ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures. 669
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 670
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 671
• On the Figure (1), the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme 672
SuperHyperGirth, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty extreme SuperHyperEdges 673
but E2 is a loop extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an extreme SuperHyperEdge. 674
Thus in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one extreme 675
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is extreme 676
isolated means that there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an extreme 677
endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 678
extreme SuperHyperGirth. 679
C(N SHG) = {E2 } is an extreme SuperHyperGirth.

C(N SHG) = z is an extreme SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 } is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth.
C(N SHG) = z is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 680
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 681
extreme SuperHyperGirth. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 682
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 683

Is the extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. The 684
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 685

Is an extreme SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 686
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 687
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of 688
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one 689
extreme consecutive sequence of the extreme SuperHyperVertices and the extreme 690
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are not only 691
four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 692
Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGirth isn’t up. The obvious simple 693
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperGirth is an extreme 694
SuperHyperSet includes only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices. But 695
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 696

17/269
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 698
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 699
extreme SuperHyperGirth isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet 700
of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 701

Isn’t the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 702
SuperHyperGirth. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 703

ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 706
SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one extreme 707
consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices and extreme 708
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle given by that extreme 709
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperGirth and it’s an extreme 710
SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an 711
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such 712
that there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 713
SuperHyperVertices and extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme 714
SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices 715
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 716

Thus the obvious extreme SuperHyperGirth, 717

Is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 718
SuperHyperGirth, is: 719

18/269
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, is: 720

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 721
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 722
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 723
is only and only 727

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperGirth, is up. 728
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 isn’t a loop 729
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 730
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 731
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 732
an endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 733
extreme SuperHyperGirth. 734

C(N SHG) = 3z is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.


19/269




20/269




E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 784
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 785
namely, E4 . 786

C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V4 } is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth.
C(N SHG) = z 3 is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.
21/269





22/269





23/269
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperGirth, is up. 835
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 836
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 837
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 838
C(N SHG) = {F, E3 , V2 , E4 , F } is an extreme SuperHyperGirth.

C(N SHG) = 4z 2 is an extreme SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V2 , F } is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth.
C(N SHG) = 4z 2 is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.



24/269






25/269

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 888
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 889
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 890
C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-SuperHyperGirth = {}.

C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth = {}.
C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial = 0.


26/269




27/269




In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the 939
SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 940
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 942
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperGirth =
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 22z 12 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi , V6 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , V1 }15
i=11 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 22z 12 .
28/269
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
extreme SuperHyperGirth is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 963
the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 964
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
Is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 965
29/269
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
SuperHyperCycle. There are not only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices 978
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGirth, 980
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
SuperHyperGirth, is not: 982
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, is not: 983
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
30/269
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperGirth, is up. The 991
following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 992
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 993
of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 994
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirth =
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
31/269
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
32/269
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

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

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

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
33/269
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the 1046
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. The 1047
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperGirth = {}
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirth = {}
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.

34/269
35/269





In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1096
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1097
36/269
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 1100
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 1101
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2 C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial =
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirth = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
37/269
38/269
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1150
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1151
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1156
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
39/269
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1175
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
40/269
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

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

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

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
41/269
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1205
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1206
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The extreme 1208
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1209
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
42/269
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
43/269
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
44/269
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1258
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. There’s 1262
only one extreme SuperHyperEdges between any given extreme amount of extreme 1263
SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any extreme SuperHyperGirth at all. The 1264
45/269
46/269
47/269
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. The 1320
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
48/269
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
49/269
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {}.

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {}.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0
50/269

C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.




51/269




52/269

In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this 1424
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus 1425
the notions in both settings are coincided. 1426

C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0


53/269





54/269



In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this 1481
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus 1482
the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected extreme 1483
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On 1484
the Figure (15). 1485
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

55/269
1491

1492

1493

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 28z 2 .
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
1494

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V15 V17 , V15 }.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 14z 3 .
56/269

1500

1501

1502

57/269
1503


1506

1507

58/269
1508

1509


59/269
1522

1523

1524

1525

60/269

1530

1531

1532

61/269
1533


1537

1538

62/269
1539

1540


63/269
1553

1554

1555

1556

64/269

1558

1559

1560

65/269
1561


1564

1565

66/269
1566

1567


67/269
1575

1576

1577

1578

68/269

1585

1586

1587

69/269
1588


1594

1595

70/269
1596

1597


1600

71/269
1601

1602

1603

72/269

1616

1617

1618

73/269
1619


1624

1625

74/269
1626

1627


1631

75/269
1632

1633

1634

76/269

1647

1648

1649

77/269
1650


1652

1653

78/269
1654

1655


1658

79/269
1659

1660

1661

80/269

1669

1670

1671

81/269
1672


1679

1680

82/269
1681

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .
1682


83/269
1688

1689

1690

84/269
1691


1694

1695

85/269
1696

1697

86/269

1710

1711

1712

87/269
1713


1718

1719

88/269
1720

1721


89/269
1725

1726

1727

90/269
1728

erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the 1729
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such 1730
SuperHyperCycle given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 1733
SuperHyperGirth and it’s an extreme SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s 1734
extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices and 1737
extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are 1738
only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1739
SuperHyperSet, 1740

1741

91/269
1742

1743

1744

92/269

1746

1747

1748

93/269
1749


1752

1753

94/269
1754

1755


95/269
1763

1764

96/269
1765




97/269



SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 1798
the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] 1799
such that there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 1800
SuperHyperGirth and it’s an extreme SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s 1803
extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices and 1806
extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are 1807
only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1808
SuperHyperSet, 1809

98/269



Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph 1822
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 1823
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an extreme type-result-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, the 1824
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an extreme type-result-SuperHyperGirth is the 1825
cardinality of 1826

99/269
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
100/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
101/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
102/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
103/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
104/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
105/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
106/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
107/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
108/269
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
109/269
Proof. Assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1827
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t an extreme 1828
quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth since neither extreme amount of extreme 1829
SuperHyperEdges nor extreme amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices where extreme 1830
amount refers to the extreme number of extreme 1831
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any extreme kind of 1832
extreme consecutive consequence as the extreme icon and extreme generator of the 1833
extreme SuperHyperCycle in the terms of the extreme longest form. Let us consider the 1834
extreme SuperHyperSet 1835

This extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to 1836
propose property such that there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of 1837
extreme SuperHyperVertices and extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme 1838
SuperHyperGirth but the maximum extreme cardinality indicates that these extreme 1840
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the extreme lower bound in the term of extreme 1841
sharpness. In other words, the extreme SuperHyperSet 1842

Of the extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but 1843
sometimes the extreme SuperHyperSet 1844

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }
Is an extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality,
the lower sharp bound for the extreme cardinality, of an extreme extreme
quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth is the cardinality of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth is only up in this
extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the
110/269
extreme generality. There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of
them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and star as the
counterexamples-classes or reversely direction cycle as the examples-classes, are
well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the examples-classes
and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Let V \ V \ {z, z 0 } in mind. There’s no extreme necessity on the extreme 1845
SuperHyperEdge since we need at least three extreme SuperHyperVertices to form an 1846
extreme SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the extreme principles of the main 1847
extreme definition since there’s no extreme condition to be satisfied but the extreme 1848
condition is on the extreme existence of the extreme SuperHyperEdge instead of acting 1849
on the extreme SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there are three extreme 1850
SuperHyperEdges, then the extreme SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the 1851
intended extreme definition to be extremely applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is 1852
withdrawn not by the extreme conditions of the main extreme definition but by the 1853
extreme necessity of the extreme pre-condition on the extreme usage of the main 1854
extreme definition. 1855
To make sense with the precise extreme words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up 1856
extreme illustrations are extremely coming up. 1857
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth.
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. The

extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of
extreme SuperHyperVertices and extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme
SuperHyperCycle given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme
SuperHyperGirth, instead of all given by extreme SuperHyperGirth is related to
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There are not only four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGirth is up. The obvious
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperGirth is an extreme
SuperHyperSet includes only four extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far four extreme SuperHyperEdges.
111/269
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme
R-SuperHyperGirth isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
R-SuperHyperGirth. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1859

SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the 1861
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that 1862
there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices 1863
and extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle given by that 1864
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperGirth and it’s an extreme 1865
SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 1866
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s 1867
only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices and 1868
extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are not only 1869
less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 1870



SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple 1875
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1876
112/269

In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s
an extreme girth embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth amid those obvious simple
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperGirth, are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph 1882
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 1883

Is an extreme type-result-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, the 1884
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an extreme type-result-SuperHyperGirth is the 1885
cardinality of 1886

1887
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the extreme number of type-result-R-SuperHyperGirth has, the least extreme cardinality,
the lower sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s an extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperGirth with the least extreme cardinality, 1888
the lower sharp extreme bound for cardinality. 1889
Proof. The extreme structure of the extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperGirth decorates

the extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any extreme connections so as this
extreme style implies different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum
extreme cardinality in the terms of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The
lower extreme bound is to have the maximum extreme groups of extreme
SuperHyperVertices have perfect extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges
and the outside of this extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the
113/269
connectedness of the used extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its extreme
properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one extreme
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no extreme
connection. Furthermore, the extreme existence of one extreme SuperHyperVertex has
no extreme effect to talk about the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. Since at least two
extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the extreme background of the
extreme SuperHyperGraph. The extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no
extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices make the
extreme version of extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the extreme setting of
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge.
It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as extreme adjective for the
initial extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no extreme appearance of the loop
extreme version of the extreme SuperHyperEdge and this extreme SuperHyperGraph is
said to be loopless. The extreme adjective “loop” on the basic extreme framework
engages one extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this extreme setting.
With these extreme bases, on an extreme SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one
extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth has the
extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an extreme
R-SuperHyperGirth has the extreme cardinality at least an extreme SuperHyperEdge.
Assume an extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an
extreme R-SuperHyperGirth since either the extreme SuperHyperGraph is an obvious
extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no extreme usage of this
extreme framework and even more there’s no extreme connection inside or the extreme
SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its consequences, there’s an extreme
contradiction with the term “extreme R-SuperHyperGirth” since the maximum extreme
cardinality never happens for this extreme style of the extreme SuperHyperSet and
beyond that there’s no extreme connection inside as mentioned in first extreme case in
the forms of drawback for this selected extreme SuperHyperSet. Let
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
Comes up. This extreme case implies having the extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
extreme style on the every extreme elements of this extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that some extreme amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
are on-quasi-triangle extreme style. The extreme cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But the lower extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum extreme cardinality of the
maximum extreme cardinality ends up the extreme discussion. The first extreme term
refers to the extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperGraph but this key point is
enough since there’s an extreme SuperHyperClass of an extreme SuperHyperGraph has
no on-quasi-triangle extreme style amid some amount of its extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices from
one extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no extreme amount of extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The extreme cardinality of this extreme SuperHyperSet is the
114/269
maximum and the extreme case is occurred in the minimum extreme situation. To sum
them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum extreme cardinality such that
Contains some extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth for the extreme SuperHyperGraph as used extreme 1890
background in the extreme terms of worst extreme case and the common theme of the 1891
lower extreme bound occurred in the specific extreme SuperHyperClasses of the extreme 1892
SuperHyperGraphs which are extreme free-quasi-triangle. 1893
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1894
are coming up. 1895



SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some
extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by extreme SuperHyperGirth is
related to the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet includes only one extreme SuperHyperVertex. But the extreme
115/269
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is
up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme

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

SuperHyperGirth, not:
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1896
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1897
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1898
“extreme R-SuperHyperGirth” 1900
extreme R-SuperHyperGirth, 1902
is only and only

116/269
an extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth amid those obvious
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperGirth, are
To sum them up, assume a simple extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the extreme number of R-SuperHyperGirth has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperGirth with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1904
cardinality. 1905
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is at 1906
least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 1907
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 1908
words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1909
extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 1910
SuperHyperGirth in some cases but the maximum number of the extreme 1911
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has 1912
the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. 1913
Proof. Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme number of

the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least no
extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those extreme
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an extreme
R-SuperHyperGirth. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an
extreme style-R-SuperHyperGirth. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the extreme SuperHyperVertices of an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) .

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The formal definition is
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and only
one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the extreme
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
117/269
This definition coincides with the definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth but
with slightly differences in the maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|extreme cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 1914
extreme R-SuperHyperGirth =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1915
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an extreme SuperHyperGirth, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could
be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme
R-SuperHyperGirth is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is 1916
at least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 1917
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 1918
other words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 1919
maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 1920
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1922
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. 1923
are coming up. 1925

118/269



SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
119/269

is only and only


To sum them up, assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an

extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme 1941
R-SuperHyperGirth. 1942
120/269
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1943
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 1944
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 1945
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 1946
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 1947
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in 1948
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 1949
them but not all of them. 1950
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1951
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 1952
some issues about the extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1953
remarks on the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1954
there’s distinct amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of extreme 1955
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1956
SuperHyperVertices but this extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1957
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1958
doesn’t have maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1959
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1960
extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth 1961
where the extreme completion of the extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1962
literarily, an extreme embedded R-SuperHyperGirth. The SuperHyperNotions of 1963
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1964
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1965
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1966
SuperHyperSets have the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1967
extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of extreme 1968
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum extreme style of the embedded 1969
extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. The interior types of the extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1970
deciders. Since the extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the 1971
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 1972
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the extreme SuperHyperSet for any 1973
distinct types of extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. 1974
Thus extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one extreme 1975
SuperHyperEdge and in extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior extreme 1976
SuperHyperVertices in that extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded extreme 1977
SuperHyperGirth, there’s the usage of exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices since 1978
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1979
relevant than the title “interior”. One extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 1980
inside. Thus, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1981
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1982
implying the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. The extreme R-SuperHyperGirth with the 1983
exclusion of the exclusion of all extreme SuperHyperVertices in one extreme 1984
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth with the 1985
inclusion of all extreme SuperHyperVertices in one extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 1986
extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1987
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge 1988
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme 1989
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth minus all 1990
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1991
there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1992
extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, minus all 1993
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1994
121/269
are coming up. 1996




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
122/269

is only and only


To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 2005
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 2006
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 2007
123/269
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2008
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 2009
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices 2010
in an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2011
some of them but not all of them. 2012
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 2013
all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth 2014
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 2015
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 2016
extreme exception at all minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 2017
Proof. The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth has two titles. an 2018
extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 2019
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any extreme 2020
number, there’s an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth with that quasi-maximum 2021
extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded extreme 2022
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 2023
extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the extreme 2024
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirths for all extreme numbers less than its extreme corresponded 2025
maximum number. The essence of the extreme SuperHyperGirth ends up but this 2026
essence starts up in the terms of the extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, again and more 2027
in the operations of collecting all the extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirths acted on the 2028
all possible used formations of the extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme 2029
number. This extreme number is 2030
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperGirths. 2031
Let zextreme Number , Sextreme SuperHyperSet and Gextreme SuperHyperGirth be an extreme 2032
number, an extreme SuperHyperSet and an extreme SuperHyperGirth. Then 2033
[zextreme Number ]extreme Class = {Sextreme SuperHyperSet |

Sextreme SuperHyperSet = Gextreme SuperHyperGirth ,
|Sextreme SuperHyperSet |extreme Cardinality
= zextreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the extreme SuperHyperGirth is 2034
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 2035
Gextreme SuperHyperGirth ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class =

∪zextreme Number {Sextreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 2036
124/269
technical definition for the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 2037
Gextreme SuperHyperGirth =
{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 2038
SuperHyperGirth poses the upcoming expressions. 2039
{S ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 2040
= max
zextreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 2041

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 2042


125/269
2043
= zextreme Number |

2044
= maxzextreme Number

2045

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “extreme 2046
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the extreme 2047
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices are 2048
incident to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “extreme 2049
Quasi-SuperHyperGirth” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “extreme 2050
Quasi-SuperHyperGirth” since “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperGirth” happens “extreme 2051
SuperHyperGirth” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 2052
background but “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “extreme 2053
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the extreme 2055
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “extreme 2056
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperGirth”, and “extreme 2057
SuperHyperGirth” are up. 2058
Thus, let zextreme Number , Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and Gextreme SuperHyperGirth 2059
be an extreme number, an extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and an extreme 2060
SuperHyperGirth and the new terms are up. 2061

∪zextreme Number {Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |extreme Cardinality
126/269
2062
{Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class =
|Nextreme SuperHyperSet |extreme Cardinality
= zextreme Number |
2063
{Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class |
2064
|Nextreme SuperHyperSet |extreme Cardinality = max zextreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 2065


2066
= zextreme Number |

2067
= max
zextreme Number

2068

127/269
Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 2069
extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth if for any 2070
of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 2071
extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 2072
are coming up. 2075




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
128/269

is only and only


129/269
To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all 2084
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth if 2085
for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 2086
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 2087
no extreme exception at all minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 2088
them. 2089
Proposition 4.7. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 2090
extreme R-SuperHyperGirth only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and 2091
all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where 2092
there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 2093
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 2094
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 2095
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2096
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 2097
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 2098
Consider all extreme numbers of those extreme SuperHyperVertices from that extreme 2099
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, 2100
exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. 2101
Consider there’s an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth with the least cardinality, the lower 2102
sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality. Assume a connected extreme 2103
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2104
SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme 2105
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 2106
extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. 2107
Since it doesn’t have the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 2108
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme 2109
SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The extreme 2110
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum 2111
extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but 2112
it isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure 2113
such that such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme 2114
SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside 2115
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 2116
ESHG : (V, E), an extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 2117
to that extreme SuperHyperVertex in the extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do 2118
“the extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the 2119
intended extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme 2120
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious extreme R-SuperHyperGirth, VESHE is up. 2121
The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth, 2122
VESHE , is an extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all extreme 2123
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of extreme pairs are titled 2124
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 2125
ESHG : (V, E). Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 2126
VESHE , is the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an extreme 2127
SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 2129
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any extreme 2130
R-SuperHyperGirth only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 2131
exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where 2132
130/269
are coming up. 2138




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
131/269

is only and only


132/269
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2147
Any extreme R-SuperHyperGirth only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices 2148
and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 2149
where there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s 2150
all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 2151
Remark 4.8. The words “ extreme SuperHyperGirth” and “extreme 2154
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum extreme type-style. In other words, 2155
they refer to the maximum extreme SuperHyperNumber and the extreme 2156
SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 2157
Proposition 4.9. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2158
Consider an extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme SuperHyperGirth has the 2159
members poses only one extreme representative in an extreme 2160
quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2161
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 2162
extreme SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the extreme results 2163
are up. Thus on a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 2164
extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme SuperHyperGirth has the members 2165
poses only one extreme representative in an extreme quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2166
5 Results on extreme SuperHyperClasses 2167
The previous extreme approaches apply on the upcoming extreme results on extreme 2168
SuperHyperClasses. 2169
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2170
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth-style with the maximum extreme 2171
SuperHyperCardinality is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2172
SuperHyperVertices. 2173
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2174
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2175
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior 2176
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding 2177
only any interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the extreme unique 2178
SuperHyperEdges. an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth has the extreme number of all 2179
the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. Also, 2180
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirth
|EESHG:(V,E) |extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth
since neither amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices
133/269
where amount refers to the extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges)
more than one to form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of
SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

propose property such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex of an extreme
SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme
SuperHyperVertices but the maximum extreme cardinality indicates that these extreme
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the extreme lower bound in the term of extreme
sharpness. In other words, the extreme SuperHyperSet
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

sometimes the extreme SuperHyperSet
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

literally,
Is a quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth is the cardinality of
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth. It’s
the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to
deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and
cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes,
are well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the
examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 2181
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 2182
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 2183
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 2184
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the extreme 2185
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 2186
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 2187
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 2188
The extreme structure of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth decorates the extreme

SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any extreme connections so as this extreme
134/269
style implies different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum extreme
cardinality in the terms of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower
extreme bound is to have the maximum extreme groups of extreme SuperHyperVertices
have perfect extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used
extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its extreme properties taken from the fact that
it’s simple. If there’s no more than one extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted
extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no extreme connection. Furthermore, the extreme
existence of one extreme SuperHyperVertex has no extreme effect to talk about the
extreme R-SuperHyperGirth. Since at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to
make a title in the extreme background of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The extreme
SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two
extreme SuperHyperVertices make the extreme version of extreme SuperHyperEdge.
Thus in the extreme setting of non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at
least one extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is
used as extreme adjective for the initial extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no
extreme appearance of the loop extreme version of the extreme SuperHyperEdge and
this extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The extreme adjective “loop” on
the basic extreme framework engages one extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this extreme setting. With these extreme bases, on an extreme
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an
extreme R-SuperHyperGirth has the extreme cardinality of an extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth has the extreme cardinality at
least an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}.
This extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth since either the
extreme SuperHyperGraph is an obvious extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never
happens since there’s no extreme usage of this extreme framework and even more
there’s no extreme connection inside or the extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and
as its consequences, there’s an extreme contradiction with the term “extreme
R-SuperHyperGirth” since the maximum extreme cardinality never happens for this
extreme style of the extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no extreme
connection inside as mentioned in first extreme case in the forms of drawback for this
selected extreme SuperHyperSet. Let
135/269

Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme number of the

extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least no
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
136/269

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2194

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 2203
137/269
The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperGirth has two titles. an extreme 2247
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 2248
138/269


= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 2270

139/269


2272
= zextreme Number |

2273

2274


140/269
= zextreme Number |
2291
2292


2294
= zextreme Number |

2295
= max
zextreme Number

2296

141/269
are coming up. 2303




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
142/269

is only and only


143/269
them. 2317
Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 2318
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperGirth, is up. There’s neither empty 2358
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 2359
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme 2360
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. The extreme SuperHyperSet of 2361
144/269
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 2362
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 2367
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex 2368
of an extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 2369
all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two extreme SuperHyperVertices 2370
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 2371
SuperHyperGirth is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 2372
extreme SuperHyperGirth is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme 2373
SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2374
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 2376
extreme SuperHyperGirth is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the 2378
145/269
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such 2384
that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices 2385
given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperGirth and 2386
it’s an extreme SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s 2387
all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three extreme 2391
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 2392
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
146/269
SuperHyperGirth, not: 2395
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 2396
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 2397
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 2398
extreme SuperHyperGirth, 2402
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected extreme SuperHyperPath 2405
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 2406
extreme SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperGirth. 2407
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2408
Then an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2409
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions on the form of interior 2410
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not 2411
excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex. an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth has the 2412
147/269
Figure 21. an extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme Super-
HyperGirth in the Example (5.3)
extreme half number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum 2413
extreme cardinality. Also, 2414
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

148/269

literally,


149/269



150/269

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

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
151/269
2428

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
152/269


153/269
= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 2504



154/269
2506
= zextreme Number |

2507

2508


155/269
2525
= zextreme Number |
2526
2527


2529
= zextreme Number |

2530
= max
zextreme Number

2531

156/269
are coming up. 2538




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
157/269

is only and only


158/269
them. 2552
159/269
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
160/269
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
161/269
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle 2640
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, in 2641
the extreme SuperHyperModel (22), is the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 2642
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 2643
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2644
extreme SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. an extreme 2645
162/269
Figure 22. an extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
SuperHyperGirth in the extreme Example (5.5)
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the one 2646
extreme SuperHyperEdge. Also, 2647
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|extreme Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . . .

163/269

literally,


164/269



165/269

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

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
166/269
2661

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
167/269


168/269
= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 2737



169/269
2739
= zextreme Number |

2740

2741


170/269
2758
= zextreme Number |
2759
2760


2762
= zextreme Number |

2763
= max
zextreme Number

2764

171/269
are coming up. 2771




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
172/269

is only and only


173/269
them. 2785
174/269
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

175/269
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

176/269
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected extreme SuperHyperStar 2873
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by 2874
the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 2875
connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel 2876
(23), is the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 2877
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 2878
Then an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2879
extreme SuperHyperVertices with no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme 2880
177/269
Figure 23. an extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
SuperHyperGirth in the extreme Example (5.7)
SuperHyperVertices titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth 2881
has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of the minimum 2882
SuperHyperPart minus those have common extreme SuperHyperNeighbors and not 2883
unique extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 2884
min |PESHG:(V,E) |extreme Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .

178/269

literally,


179/269



180/269

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

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
181/269
2898

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
182/269


183/269
= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 2974



184/269
2976
= zextreme Number |

2977

2978


185/269
2995
= zextreme Number |
2996
2997


2999
= zextreme Number |

3000
= max
zextreme Number

3001

186/269
are coming up. 3008




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
187/269

is only and only


188/269
them. 3022
189/269
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
190/269
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
191/269
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.9. In the extreme Figure (24), the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite 3110
ESHB : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 3111
SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 3112
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in 3113
the extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 3114
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3115
ESHM : (V, E). Then an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is an extreme SuperHyperSet of 3116
the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exception in the extreme 3117
form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from an extreme SuperHyperPart and only 3118
no exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart 3119
titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than some of them 3120
aren’t SuperHyperNeighbors to all. an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth has the extreme 3121
maximum number on all the extreme summation on the extreme cardinality of the all 3122
extreme SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus those make extreme 3123
SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 3124
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
192/269
Figure 24. an extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme Notions
of extreme SuperHyperGirth in the Example (5.9)



literally,
193/269

194/269


195/269
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3138

196/269
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
197/269


= zextreme Number |
198/269

And then, 3214



3216
= zextreme Number |

3217

199/269
3218


3235
= zextreme Number |
3236
3237
200/269


3239
= zextreme Number |

3240

3241

are coming up. 3248



201/269

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



202/269
is only and only


them. 3262
203/269
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
204/269
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
205/269
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
206/269
Figure 25. an extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
SuperHyperGirth in the Example (5.11)
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3350
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 3351
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 3352
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 3353
in the extreme SuperHyperModel (25), is the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 3354
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 3355
Then an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 3356
extreme SuperHyperVertices, excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no 3357
exception in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme 3358
SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion on extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them 3359
and not all. an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth has the extreme maximum number on all 3360
the extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges don’t have common extreme 3361
207/269
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3362
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.



literally,

208/269

209/269


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

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
210/269
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3376

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
211/269
212/269


= zextreme Number |
213/269

And then, 3452



3454
= zextreme Number |

3455

3456

214/269

3473
= zextreme Number |
3474
3475


215/269
3477
= zextreme Number |

3478

3479

are coming up. 3486



216/269

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

217/269
is only and only


them. 3500
218/269
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
219/269
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
220/269
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
221/269
Figure 26. an extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions
of extreme SuperHyperGirth in the extreme Example (5.13)
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.13. In the extreme Figure (26), the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel 3588
N SHW : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme 3589
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 3590
of the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the extreme 3591
SuperHyperModel (26), is the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 3592
6 General extreme Results 3593
For the SuperHyperGirth, extreme SuperHyperGirth, and the extreme 3594
SuperHyperGirth, some general results are introduced. 3595
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the extreme SuperHyperGirth is “redefined” on the 3596
positions of the alphabets. 3597
Corollary 6.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperGirth. Then 3598
extreme SuperHyperGirth =
{theSuperHyperGirthof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|extremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperGirth. }
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 3599
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 3600
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 3601
222/269
Corollary 6.3. Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 3602
the alphabet. Then the notion of extreme SuperHyperGirth and SuperHyperGirth 3603
coincide. 3604
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an extreme 3606
SuperHyperGirth if and only if it’s a SuperHyperGirth. 3607
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 3609
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 3610
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 3611
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperGirth is its 3612
SuperHyperGirth and reversely. 3613
Corollary 6.7. Assume an extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 3614
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 3615
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperGirth is its 3616
SuperHyperGirth and reversely. 3617
Corollary 6.8. Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 3618
SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined. 3619
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 3620
extreme SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth isn’t 3621
well-defined. 3622
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 3624
Then its extreme SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth 3625
isn’t well-defined. 3626
Corollary 6.11. Assume an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 3627
SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth is well-defined. 3628
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 3629
its extreme SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth is 3630
well-defined. 3631
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 3633
Then its extreme SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth is 3634
well-defined. 3635
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 3636
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3637
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3638
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3639
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3640
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3641
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3642
223/269
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3643
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3644
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3645
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3646
statements are equivalent. 3647
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3648
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3650
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3652
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3654
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
224/269
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are 3656
equivalent. 3657
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
3658
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 3659
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3660
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3661
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3662
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3663
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3664
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3665
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3666
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3667
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3668
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements 3669
are equivalent. 3670
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3671
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3673
225/269
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements 3675
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3677
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3679
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
3681
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3682
independent SuperHyperSet is 3683
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3684
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3685
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3686
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3687
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3688
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3689
226/269
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 3690
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3691
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 3693
since the following statements are equivalent. 3694
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive 3695
SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are equivalent. 3696
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive 3697
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 3699
since the following statements are equivalent. 3700
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3701
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
227/269
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3703
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
3705
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperUniform 3706
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 3707
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3708
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3709
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3710
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3711
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3712
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3713
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3714
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 3715
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3716
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3717
SuperHyperGirth. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 3718
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 3719
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3720
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3721
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3722
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive 3723
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3724
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3725
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. This segment 3726
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3727
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3728
228/269
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3729
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3732
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3733
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 3734
it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3735
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3736
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 3737
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3738
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3739
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3740
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3741
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3742
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3743
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3744
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3745
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 3746
which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3747
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 3750
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3751
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3752
229/269
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive 3754
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 3755
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3757
Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3758
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 3761
(i) : the SuperHyperGirth; 3762
(ii) : the SuperHyperGirth; 3763
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperGirth; 3764
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 3765
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 3766
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth. 3767
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3768
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3769
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 3770
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3771
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 3774
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3775
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3776
230/269
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3779
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3780
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. This segment 3781
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3782
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3783
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3784
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3787
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 3789
it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3790
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3793
(i) : the dual SuperHyperGirth; 3794
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperGirth; 3795
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperGirth; 3796
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 3797
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 3798
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth. 3799
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3800
231/269
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 3802
which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3803
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 3806
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3807
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3808
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual 3810
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform 3811
SuperHyperWheel. 3812
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3814
Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3815
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 3818
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3819
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 3820
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3821
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3825
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3826
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3827
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 3828
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3829
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3830
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
232/269
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3831
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in 3832
a given SuperHyperStar. 3833
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3834
SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3835
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3837
SuperHyperGirth and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 3839
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3840
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3842
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3843

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 3845
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3846
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3850
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3851
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3852
is a 3853
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3857
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3858
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3859
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3860
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3861
233/269
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has 3862
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 3863
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a 3864
given SuperHyperStar. 3865
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3866
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3867
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3868
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3869
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3871
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3872
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3873
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3874
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3875
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar 3877
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3878
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s an 3880
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3881
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 3885
number of 3886
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3890
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3891
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3892
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 3893
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 3894
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3895
234/269
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3898
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3899
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3900
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3904
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3906
SuperHyperGirth and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 3908
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3909
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3911
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3912

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 3914
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3915
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 3917
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 3918
(iv) : SuperHyperGirth; 3922
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3923
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3924
235/269
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3925
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some 3926
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 3927
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 3928
and number of connected component is |V − S|. 3929
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s a dual 3931
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3932
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 3934
number is 3935
at most O(ESHG) and the extreme number is 3936
at most On (ESHG). 3937
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3938
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3939
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3940
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements 3941
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are 3943
equivalent. 3944
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3945
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
236/269
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are 3947
equivalent. 3948
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3949
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3951
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and V is the biggest 3953
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is 3954
at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the extreme number is 3955
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 3956
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 3957
SuperHyperComplete. The number is 3958

O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the extreme number is 3959
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 3960
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3964
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3966
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3967
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 3968
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3969
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
237/269
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 3971

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3973
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3974
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3975
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 3978
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number 3979
is 3980
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 3982
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3984
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 3987
is 3989
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 3991
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3993
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3996
is 3998
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4002
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
238/269
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong 4005
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a given 4006
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4007

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4009
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4011
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected 4014
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a given 4015
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4016

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4018
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 4020
The number is 4021
0 and the extreme number is 4022
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 4023
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4027
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4028
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4029
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 4030
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4031
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4033
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4035
239/269
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4037
SuperHyperGirth. 4038
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4039
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4041
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4043
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the 4045
following statements are equivalent. 4046
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4047
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 4049
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4051
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4053
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive 4055
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4057
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
240/269
The number is 4059
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4061
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the 4063
following statements are equivalent. 4064
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4065
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive 4067
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 4070
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 4072
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the extreme number is 4073
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 4074
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4078
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4079
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4080
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 4081
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 4082
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4083
SuperHyperGirth. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 4084
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 4085
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4086
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4087
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperCycle. 4088
241/269
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4089
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 4091
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4092
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperPath. 4094
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4095
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 4097
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4098
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperWheel. 4100
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4102
Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4103
Thus the number is 4105
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the extreme number is 4106
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4107
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 4110
number is 4111
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

242/269
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 4121
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4122
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 4123
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4126
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4129
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4130
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and they are chosen from different 4131
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 4132
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4133
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 4134
in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor 4135
complete SuperHyperBipartite. 4136

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4138
SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 4139
Thus the number is 4142

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 4144
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 4146
extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 4147
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 4148
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 4149
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 4150
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 4151
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 4152
243/269
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 4153
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 4154
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 4155
(ii) vx ∈ E. 4156
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4157
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, 4158
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4159
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, 4160
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x).
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
4161
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 4162
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then 4163
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 4164
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 4165
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4166
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, either 4167
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or 4168
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet. 4169
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4170
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, either 4171
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
244/269
or 4172
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4173
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 4174
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 4175
number. 4176
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 4177
(i) Γ ≤ O; 4178
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 4179
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 4180
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all SuperHyperSets 4181
of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 4182
S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So 4183
for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 4184
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 4185
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all SuperHyperSets 4186
of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of extreme 4187
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 4188
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all 4189
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 4190
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 4191
connected. Then 4192
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 4193
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4194
245/269
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let 4195
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4196
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all 4197
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4198
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 4199
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 4200
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 4201
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let 4202
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4203
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all 4204
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4205
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices 4206
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4207
extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 4208
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4209
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 4210
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4211
SuperHyperGirth; 4212
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4213
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4214
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4215
a dual SuperHyperGirth. 4216
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 4217
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4218
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
246/269
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4219
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4220
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual 4221
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4222
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 4224
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4225
SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4226
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4227
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4228
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4229
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 4235
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4236
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 4237
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 4238
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4239
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4240
dual SuperHyperGirth. 4241
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4242
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4243
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
247/269
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4244
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4245
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4246
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4247
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4250
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4251
SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4252
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 4259
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4260
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 4262
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4263
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 4264
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4265
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4267
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4268
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
248/269
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4269
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4270
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4271
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4272
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4275
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4276
SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4277
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 4284
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4285
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4287
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4288
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4289
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 4291
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
249/269
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4299
SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4300
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4301
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4302
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4303
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 4309
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperGirth; 4310
(ii) Γ = 1; 4311
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 4312
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperGirth. 4313
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4314
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
250/269
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4315
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4316
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. It induces 4317
S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4318
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s 4320
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Suppose 4321
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4322
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4323
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 4324
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4325
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4326
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 4327
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 4328
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 4329
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4330
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 4331

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 4332
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 4333
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 3 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
6+3(i−1)≤n
It implies S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4334
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4335

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4336
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 4337
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
251/269
or 4338
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4339
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4340
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 4341
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4342
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 4343
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 4344
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4345
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 4347
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 4348
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4349
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 4351

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 4352
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4353
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4354
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4355
bn c+1
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4356
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 4359
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4360
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 4361
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 4362
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4363
252/269
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4365
Thus 4366
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4367
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4368
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
n
b2c
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4370
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of extreme 4373
SuperHyperStars with common extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 4374
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4375
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF; 4376
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 4377
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 4378
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 4379
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). 4380
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4381
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4382
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4383
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4384
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 4385
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). 4386
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 4388
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 4389
253/269
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is 4390
a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4391
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4392
N SHF : (V, E). 4393
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 4394
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 4395
SuperHyperSet. Then 4396
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4397
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF; 4398
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 4399
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4400
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperGirth for 4401
N SHF : (V, E). 4402
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4403
Thus 4404
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4405
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4406
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4408
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 4411
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 4412
SuperHyperSet. Then 4413
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 4414
for N SHF : (V, E); 4415
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 4416
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4417
S={vi }i=1
254/269
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperGirth for 4418
N SHF : (V, E). 4419
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4420
Thus 4421
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4422
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4423
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4425
following statements hold; 4429
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4430
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 4431
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4433
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 4434
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4436
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4437
Then 4438
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4439
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4440
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4441
SuperHyperGirth. Then 4442
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4443
following statements hold; 4445
255/269
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4446
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4447
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4449
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 4450
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4452
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4453
Then 4454
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. By S is an 4455
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 4456
SuperHyperGirth, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperGirth. 4457
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4458
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4459
SuperHyperGirth. Then 4460
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. By S is an 4461
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive 4462
SuperHyperGirth, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperGirth. 4463
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4464
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 4465
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4468
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4470
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4472
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4473
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4474
SuperHyperGraph. Then 4475
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4476
256/269
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4477
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4479
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4480
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4482
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4483
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4485
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4486
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 4487
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4490
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4492
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4494
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4495
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
257/269
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4499
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4501
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4503
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
4504
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4506
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4509
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4511
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4514
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4516
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
258/269
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4518
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4520
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4522
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
4523
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4525
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4528
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 4530
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4531
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4533
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4535
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4542
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4545
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 4547
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4548
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4550
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4552
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4557
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4559
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
260/269
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4561
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4563
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
4564
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 4566
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4567
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4569
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4571
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 4576
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

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

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

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
261/269
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
7 extreme Applications in Cancer’s extreme 4587
Recognition 4588
The cancer is the extreme disease but the extreme model is going to figure out what’s 4589
going on this extreme phenomenon. The special extreme case of this extreme disease is 4590
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 4591
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 4592
matter of mind. The extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some extreme 4593
treatments for this extreme disease. 4594
In the following, some extreme steps are extreme devised on this disease. 4595
Step 1. (extreme Definition) The extreme recognition of the cancer in the 4596
long-term extreme function. 4597
Step 2. (extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the extreme 4598
model [it’s called extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long extreme cycle of the 4599
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 4600
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 4601
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 4602
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be extreme SuperHyperGraph] 4603
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 4604
Step 3. (extreme Model) There are some specific extreme models, which are 4605
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general extreme models. The 4606
moves and the extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 4607
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an extreme 4608
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 4609
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 4610
extreme SuperHyperGirth or the extreme SuperHyperGirth in those extreme 4611
extreme SuperHyperModels. 4612
8 Case 1: The Initial extreme Steps Toward 4613
extreme SuperHyperBipartite as extreme 4614
SuperHyperModel 4615
Step 4. (extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (27), the extreme 4616
SuperHyperBipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 4617
By using the extreme Figure (27) and the Table (4), the extreme 4618
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4619
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 4620
extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 4621
262/269
Figure 27. an extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
SuperHyperGirth
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The extreme SuperHyperBipartite
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is 4622
the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 4623
9 Case 2: The Increasing extreme Steps Toward 4624
extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as extreme 4625
SuperHyperModel 4626
Step 4. (extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (28), the extreme 4627
SuperHyperMultipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 4628
By using the extreme Figure (28) and the Table (5), the extreme 4629
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 4630
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 4631
result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 4632
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (28), 4633
is the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 4634
10 Open Problems 4635
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4636
263/269
Figure 28. an extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
SuperHyperGirth
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
264/269
The SuperHyperGirth and the extreme SuperHyperGirth are defined on a real-world 4637
application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4638
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 4639
recognitions? 4640
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperGirth and 4641
the extreme SuperHyperGirth? 4642
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 4643
compute them? 4644
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 4645
SuperHyperGirth and the extreme SuperHyperGirth? 4646
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperGirth and the extreme SuperHyperGirth do a 4647
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperGirth, 4648
are there else? 4649
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4650
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4651
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4652
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4653
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4654
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 4655
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 4656
highlighted. 4657
This research uses some approaches to make extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 4658
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 4659
SuperHyperGirth. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 4660
extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the 4661
new definition for the extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, extreme 4662
SuperHyperGirth, finds the convenient background to implement some results based on 4663
that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of 4664
this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer 4665
to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 4666
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperGirth, the new 4667
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are 4668
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperGirth and the extreme SuperHyperGirth. 4669
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 4670
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 4671
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 4672
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 4673
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 4674
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 4675
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 4676
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 4677
formally called “ SuperHyperGirth” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 4678
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 4679
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this 4680
research are pointed out. 4681
265/269
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperGirth
3. extreme SuperHyperGirth 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
References 4682
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4683
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 4684
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4685
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 4686
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 4687
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 4688
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 4689
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 4690
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 4691
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 4692
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 4693
(2022) 242-263. 4694
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 4695
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 4696
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4697
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4698
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 4699
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 4700
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 4701
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 4702
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 4703
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 4704
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 4705
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 4706
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 4707
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 4708
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 4709
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 4710
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 4711
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 4712
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 4713
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 4714
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4715
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 4716
266/269
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 4717
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 4718
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 4719
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 4720
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 4721
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 4722
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 4723
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 4724
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 4725
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 4726
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4727
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4728
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4729
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 4730
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 4731
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4732
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 4733
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 4734
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4735
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4736
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4737
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 4738
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4739
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4740
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4741
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4742
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4743
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4744
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4745
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4746
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4747
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4748
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4749
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 4750
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4751
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4753
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4754
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4755
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 4756
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4757
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4758
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 4759
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 4760
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 4761
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4762
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4763
267/269
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4764
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 4765
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4766
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4767
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4768
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4769
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4770
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 4771
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 4772
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4773
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4774
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 4775
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 4776
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 4777
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 4778
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 4779
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 4780
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 4781
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4782
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4783
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4784
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4785
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 4786
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 4787
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 4788
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 4789
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4790
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4791
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4793
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4794
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4795
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 4796
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4797
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4798
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4799
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4800
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4801
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4802
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4805
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4806
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4807
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4808
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4809
268/269
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4810
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4811
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4812
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4813
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4814
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4815
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4816
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4817
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4818
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4819
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4820
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4821
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4822
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4823
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4824
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4825
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4826
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4827
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 4828
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 4829
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 4830
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 4831
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 4832
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 4833
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 4834
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 4835
41. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 4836
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 4837
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 4838
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 4839
42. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 4840
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 4841
43. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 4842
(2016) 86-101. 4843
44. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 4844
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 4845
45. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 4846
269/269

textbf/newline (SuperHyperGirth Approaches On The Super Challenges On The Cancer's Recognition in The Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

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

textbf/newline (SuperHyperGirth Approaches On The Super Challenges On The Cancer's Recognition in The Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on 2

the Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of 3

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

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 10

SuperHyperGirth and extreme SuperHyperGirth . Two different types of 11

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13

well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “extreme 25

SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. 26

problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) 30

for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 31

SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 32

SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have 33

a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for 34

an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of 35

an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme SuperHyperEdges 36

such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an extreme SuperHyperEdge 37

and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme SuperHyperVertex in an 38

extreme SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial 39

C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 40

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum 41

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s 42

no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to 43

have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its 44

extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 46

extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme 48

SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an extreme 49

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme 50

SuperHyperVertex in an extreme SuperHyperEdge and the extreme power is extremely 51

corresponded to its extreme coefficient; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for 52

an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 53

SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 54

SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have 55

a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) 56

for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality 57

of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme 58

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an 59

extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme 60

SuperHyperVertex in an extreme SuperHyperEdge; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth 61

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 62

the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of 63

the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices 64

such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 65

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is 66

corresponded to its coefficient; an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial 67

C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 68

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number 69

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

cardinality extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex 71

not to in an extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 72

an extreme SuperHyperVertex in an extreme SuperHyperEdge and the extreme power is 73

extremely corresponded to its extreme coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 74

δ−SuperHyperGirth is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality 75

SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and 77

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 78

δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 79

δ−SuperHyperDefensive; an extreme δ−SuperHyperGirth is a maximal extreme of 80

expressions hold for the extreme cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there 82

are: |S ∩ N (s)|extreme > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|extreme + δ; and 83

|S ∩ N (s)|extreme < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|extreme + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 84