Cancer's Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph by The Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles On Super Mess

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/367510970
Cancer's Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By the Criteria of

Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modiﬁed Cycles On Super Mess
Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
275 PUBLICATIONS 2,428 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Fuzzy Logic View project
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 28 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

the Neutrosophic 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 425
+
]− 0, 1 [. 426
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 427
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

single valued neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [38],Definition 428
2.5,p.2). 429
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 443
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 444
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 445
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 446
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 447
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 448
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 449
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 450
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 451
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 452
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 453
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 454
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 455
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 456
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 457
could be characterized as 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
(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 neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 469
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 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 neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 477
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic 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
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 490
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 491
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 492
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 493
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 494
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 495
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 496
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 497
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 498
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 499
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 500
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 501
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 502
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 503
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 504
(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 SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 520
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 521
Definition 3.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 522
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 523
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 524
intersection 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
(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 a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 539
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 540
Vs if either of 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 neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 552
s). 553
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is
sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 555
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 556
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 557
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 558
SuperHyperPath . 559
Definition 3.16. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperCycle). 560
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 561
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 562
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 563
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges in 564
the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperEdges and extreme 565
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the extreme SuperHyperCycle and either 566
all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all extreme SuperHyperEdges; 567
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 568
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 569
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 570
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 571
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 572
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 573
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 574
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an 575
contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number of the maximum 577
extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges of an extreme 578
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 579
SuperHyperEdges and extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 580
extreme SuperHyperCycle and either all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all 581
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 582
coefficient; 583
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 584
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 585
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 586
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 587
SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 588
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 589
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 590
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 591
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 592
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme 593
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an 594
extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme 595
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 596
extreme SuperHyperEdges; 599
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 600
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 601
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 602
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 603
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 604
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 605
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges;; 606
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 607
an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 608
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme 609
number of the maximum extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 610
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 611
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 614
coefficient; 615
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 616
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 617
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 618
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 619
SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 620
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 621
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 622
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 623
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 624
Definition 3.17. ((neutrosophic/neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperCycle). 625
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 626
(i) an δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 627
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following expressions hold for the 628
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 629
|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 630
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 631
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 632
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following neutrosophic expressions hold 633
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 634
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 635
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 636
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 637
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 638
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 639
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 640
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 641
Definition 3.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 642
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 643
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 644
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 645
understandable. 646
Definition 3.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 647
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 648
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 649
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 650
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

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.19)
SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic 651
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 652
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 653
(2) holds. 654
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 655
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 656
more neutrosophicly understandable. 657
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 658
the neutrosophic notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. The SuperHyperVertices 659
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 660
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 661
Definition 3.20. Assume a SuperHyperCycle. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 662
SuperHyperCycle if the Table (3) holds. 663
4 Extreme SuperHyperCycle 664
The extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme SuperHyperCycle, is up. Thus the 665
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle, S is up. The extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 666
the extreme SuperHyperCycle, is: S is a extreme SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes 667
only more than four extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 668
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the extreme 669
type-SuperHyperSet called the 670

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
“extreme SuperHyperCycle” 671
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme type-SuperHyperSets 672
called the 673
SuperHyperCycle, 674
is only and only S in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a 675
illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] 676
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme 677
SuperHyperCycle amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected extreme 678
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 679
featured on the Figures. 680
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 681
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 682
• On the Figure (1), the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme 683
SuperHyperCycle, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty extreme SuperHyperEdges 684
but E2 is a loop extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a extreme SuperHyperEdge. 685
Thus in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one extreme 686
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is extreme 687
isolated means that there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a extreme 688
endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 689
extreme SuperHyperCycle. 690
C(N SHG) = {E2 } is a extreme SuperHyperCycle.

C(N SHG) = z is an extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 } is a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle.
C(N SHG) = z is a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 691
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 692
extreme SuperHyperCycle. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 693
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 694

Is the extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. The 695
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 696

Is a extreme SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 697
ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 698
the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 699
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one extreme 700
consecutive sequence of the extreme SuperHyperVertices and the extreme 701
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle but it has either all 702
extreme SuperHyperEdges or all extreme SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it 703
has all extreme SuperHyperEdges. There’s no extreme SuperHyperCycle such 704
that it has all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four 705
extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus 706
the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple extreme 707
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperCycle is a extreme 708
SuperHyperSet includes only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices. But 709
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 710

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 712
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 713
extreme SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet 714
of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 715

Isn’t the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 716
SuperHyperCycle. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 717

Is a extreme SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph 719
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 720
SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one extreme 721
consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices and extreme 722
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle, but it has either all 723
that it has all extreme SuperHyperVertices, given by that extreme 726
type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the extreme SuperHyperCycle and it’s a 727
extreme SuperHyperCycle. Since it has 728
has all extreme SuperHyperEdges. There are only less than four extreme 734
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 735

Thus the obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle, 736

Is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 737
SuperHyperCycle, is: 738

Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, is: 739

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 740
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 741
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 742
called the 745
extreme SuperHyperCycle, 746
is only and only 747

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. 748
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 isn’t a loop 749
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 750
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 751
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 752
an endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 753
extreme SuperHyperCycle. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded 754
in every given extreme SuperHyperCycle. 755










called the 810

E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 814
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 815
namely, E4 . E2 is an isolated SuperHyperEdge. 816
With the exception of E2 , the concept could be applied. With keeping E2 in the 817
mind, the story is coming up. 818

C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V3 } is a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle.









called the 873

• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperCycle, is up. 876
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 877
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 878
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 879
C(N SHG) = {V3 , E1 , V4 , E2 , H, E1 , V3 } is a extreme SuperHyperCycle.

C(N SHG) = 4z 3 is a extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V3 , V4 , H, V3 } is a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle.
C(N SHG) = 4z 4 is a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial.









called the 934

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 938
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 939
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 940
C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-SuperHyperCycle = {V5 , E1 , V4 , E4 , V5 }.

C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle = {V5 , V4 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 3 .









called the 995

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 999
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperCycle = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 22 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperCycle =
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 23 .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
that it has all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four 1014
the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle is up. The obvious simple extreme 1016

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1025

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
has all extreme SuperHyperEdges. There aren’t only less than four extreme 1043

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle, 1045

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is up. The non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1046

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Doesn’t include only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1049
called the 1054
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperCycle = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21 9

i=1 ∪ {V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }j=

{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. The 1057
following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 1058
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1059
of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 1060
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperCycle =
{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 }
that it has all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four 1076
{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 }
{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 }
called the 1116
{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 1121
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. The 1122
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperCycle = {}
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperCycle = {}
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1148
extreme SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1150
the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1151

called the 1181

In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1184
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1185
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 1188
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. There’s no coverage on 1189
either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the quasi-discussion 1190
on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this item are referred 1191
to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied totally but somehow 1192
the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all SuperHyperVertices or all 1193
SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms extreme SuperHyperCycle, 1194
extreme Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial, extreme 1195
R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 1196
SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of the analogous terms have the prefix 1197
‘quasi” and even more all the context are about the quasi-style of the studied 1198
notion and the used notion is quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the 1199
term “quasi”. Furthermore, for the convenient usage and the harmony of the 1200
context with the used title and other applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t 1201
used more than the following groups of expressions. 1202
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
that it has all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t less than only four 1221
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
called the 1261
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1264
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1265
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. There’s no 1269
coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 1270
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 1271
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 1272
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 1273
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 1274
extreme SuperHyperCycle, extreme Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 1275
SuperHyperPolynomial, extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and extreme 1276
R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of the 1277
analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the context are about 1278
the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is quasi-notion even 1279
they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for the convenient usage 1280
and the harmony of the context with the used title and other applied segments , 1281
the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of expressions. The 1282
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1283
{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 }
Is an extreme SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 1290
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are not only 1295
four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 1296
Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple 1297
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperCycle is a extreme 1298
{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 }
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle given by that extreme 1313
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperCycle and it’s a extreme 1314
SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of a 1315
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such 1316
that there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 1317
SuperHyperVertices and extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme 1318
SuperHyperCycle. There are not only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices 1319
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 1320
{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 }
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1327
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1329
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1332
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1333
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The extreme 1335
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1336
{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 }
{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 }
SuperHyperCycle, is not: 1376
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, is not: 1377
{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). 1385
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. There’s 1389
only one extreme SuperHyperEdges between any given extreme amount of extreme 1390
SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any extreme SuperHyperCycle at all. The 1391
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)extremeSuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. The 1447
{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 }.
{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 }.
{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−SuperHyperCycle = {}.

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {}.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0

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









In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this 1551
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus 1552
the notions in both settings are coincided. 1553

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










In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this 1608
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus 1609
the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected extreme 1610
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On 1611
the Figure (15). 1612
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

1618

1619

1620

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
1621

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V15 V17 , V15 }.

1627

1628

1629

1630


1633

1634

1635

1636


1649

1650

1651

1652


1657

1658

1659

1660


1664

1665

1666

1667

SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices 1678

1680

1681

1682

1683


1685

1686

1687

1688


1691

1692

1693

1694


1702

1703

1704

1705


1712

1713

1714

1715


1721

1722

1723

1724


1727

1728

1729

1730


1743

1744

1745

1746


1751

1752

1753

1754


1758

1759

1760

1761

SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices 1772

1774

1775

1776

1777


1779

1780

1781

1782


1785

1786

1787

1788


1796

1797

1798

1799


1806

1807

1808

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .
1809


1815

1816

1817

1818


1821

1822

1823

1824


1837

1838

1839

1840


1845

1846

1847

1848


1852

1853

1854

1855

erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the 1856
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such 1857
SuperHyperCycle given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 1860
SuperHyperCycle and it’s a extreme SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s 1861
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are only less 1865
than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1866
SuperHyperSet, 1867

1868

1869

1870

1871


1873

1874

1875

1876


1879

1880

1881

1882



1890

1891

1892







SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 1925
the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] 1926
such that there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 1927
SuperHyperCycle and it’s a extreme SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s 1930
SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are only less 1934
than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1935
SuperHyperSet, 1936




Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph 1949
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 1950
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a extreme type-result-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least cardinality, the 1951
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a extreme type-result-SuperHyperCycle is the 1952
cardinality of 1953

Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperCycle in

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
Proof. Assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1954
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t a extreme 1955
quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle since neither extreme amount of extreme 1956
SuperHyperEdges nor extreme amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices where extreme 1957
amount refers to the extreme number of extreme 1958
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any extreme kind of 1959
extreme consecutive consequence as the extreme icon and extreme generator of the 1960
extreme SuperHyperCycle in the terms of the extreme longest form. Let us consider the 1961
extreme SuperHyperSet 1962

This extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to 1963
propose property such that there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of 1964
extreme SuperHyperVertices and extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme 1965
SuperHyperCycle but the maximum extreme cardinality indicates that these extreme 1967
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the extreme lower bound in the term of extreme 1968
sharpness. In other words, the extreme SuperHyperSet 1969

Of the extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but 1970
sometimes the extreme SuperHyperSet 1971

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 a extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least cardinality,
the lower sharp bound for the extreme cardinality, of a extreme extreme
quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle 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-SuperHyperCycle is only up in this
extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the
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 1972
SuperHyperEdge since we need at least three extreme SuperHyperVertices to form a 1973
extreme SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the extreme principles of the main 1974
extreme definition since there’s no extreme condition to be satisfied but the extreme 1975
condition is on the extreme existence of the extreme SuperHyperEdge instead of acting 1976
on the extreme SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there are three extreme 1977
SuperHyperEdges, then the extreme SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the 1978
intended extreme definition to be extremely applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is 1979
withdrawn not by the extreme conditions of the main extreme definition but by the 1980
extreme necessity of the extreme pre-condition on the extreme usage of the main 1981
extreme definition. 1982
To make sense with the precise extreme words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up 1983
extreme illustrations are extremely coming up. 1984
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle.
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-SuperHyperCycle. The

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

ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum extreme cardinality of a 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
SuperHyperCycle, instead of all given by extreme SuperHyperCycle 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 SuperHyperCycle is up. The obvious
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperCycle is a 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.
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme

R-SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
R-SuperHyperCycle. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1986

SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the 1988
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that 1989
there’s only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices 1990
and extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle given by that 1991
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperCycle and it’s a extreme 1992
SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme 1993
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s 1994
only one extreme consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperVertices and 1995
extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one extreme SuperHyperCycle. There are not only 1996
less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 1997



SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple 2002

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

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s
a extreme girth embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle amid those obvious simple
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperCycle, are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph 2009
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2010

Is a extreme type-result-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least cardinality, the 2011
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a extreme type-result-SuperHyperCycle is the 2012
cardinality of 2013

2014
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the extreme number of type-result-R-SuperHyperCycle has, the least extreme cardinality,
the lower sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s a extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperCycle with the least extreme cardinality, the 2015
lower sharp extreme bound for cardinality. 2016
Proof. The extreme structure of the extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperCycle 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
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-SuperHyperCycle. 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 a extreme SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one extreme
SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has the extreme
cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has the
extreme cardinality at least a extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume a extreme
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t a extreme
R-SuperHyperCycle 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 a extreme contradiction
with the term “extreme R-SuperHyperCycle” 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-SuperHyperCycle 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 a extreme SuperHyperClass of a extreme SuperHyperGraph has no
on-quasi-triangle extreme style amid some amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices.
This extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperModel proposes a 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 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 a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle for the extreme SuperHyperGraph as used extreme 2017
background in the extreme terms of worst extreme case and the common theme of the 2018
lower extreme bound occurred in the specific extreme SuperHyperClasses of the extreme 2019
SuperHyperGraphs which are extreme free-quasi-triangle. 2020
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 2021
are coming up. 2022


Is an extreme R-SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some
extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by extreme SuperHyperCycle 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
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-SuperHyperCycle is
up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme

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

SuperHyperCycle, not:
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 2023
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 2024
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 2025
“extreme R-SuperHyperCycle” 2027
extreme R-SuperHyperCycle, 2029
is only and only


a extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple extreme
To sum them up, assume a simple extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the extreme number of R-SuperHyperCycle has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperCycle with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 2031
cardinality. 2032
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a

extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the
extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle is at 2033
least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 2034
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 2035
words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 2036
extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 2037
SuperHyperCycle in some cases but the maximum number of the extreme 2038
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has 2039
the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle. 2040
Proof. Assume a 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 a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle.
Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a extreme
style-R-SuperHyperCycle. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the extreme SuperHyperVertices of a 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-SuperHyperCycle is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle 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-SuperHyperCycle. 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, 2041
extreme R-SuperHyperCycle =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
2042
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in a extreme SuperHyperCycle, 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 a extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has
z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme
R-SuperHyperCycle is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle is 2043
at least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 2044
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 2045
other words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 2046
maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 2047
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 2049
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle. 2050
are coming up. 2052




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


is only and only


To sum them up, assume a connected loopless extreme SuperHyperGraph

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

extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in a extreme 2068
R-SuperHyperCycle. 2069
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 2070
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 2071
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 2072
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2073
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 2074
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in 2075
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 2076
them but not all of them. 2077
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 2078
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 2079
some issues about the extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 2080
remarks on the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 2081
there’s distinct amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of extreme 2082
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2083
SuperHyperVertices but this extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2084
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 2085
doesn’t have maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 2086
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 2087
extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle where 2088
the extreme completion of the extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, a 2089
extreme embedded R-SuperHyperCycle. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 2090
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 2091
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 2092
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 2093
extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 2094
than two distinct types of extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 2095
extreme style of the embedded extreme R-SuperHyperCycle. The interior types of the 2096
extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the extreme number of 2097
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. 2098
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 2099
inside the extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of extreme SuperHyperVertices 2100
pose the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle. Thus extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could 2101
be used only in one extreme SuperHyperEdge and in extreme SuperHyperRelation with 2102
the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices in that extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the 2103
embedded extreme SuperHyperCycle, there’s the usage of exterior extreme 2104
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 2105
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One extreme 2106
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the 2107
extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the 2108
exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle. The 2109
extreme R-SuperHyperCycle with the exclusion of the exclusion of all extreme 2110
SuperHyperVertices in one extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the extreme 2111
R-SuperHyperCycle with the inclusion of all extreme SuperHyperVertices in one 2112
extreme SuperHyperEdge, is a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle. To sum them up, in 2113
a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one 2114
extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the 2115
distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme 2116
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but 2117
not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 2118
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme 2119
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but 2120
not all of them. 2121
are coming up. 2123




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


is only and only


To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 2132
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 2133
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 2134
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2135
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 2136
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices 2137
in an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2138
some of them but not all of them. 2139
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 2140
all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle 2141
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 2142
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 2143
extreme exception at all minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 2144
Proof. The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has two titles. a extreme 2145
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 2146
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any extreme 2147
number, there’s a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle with that quasi-maximum extreme 2148
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 2149
there’s an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the extreme 2150
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the extreme 2151
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycles for all extreme numbers less than its extreme corresponded 2152
maximum number. The essence of the extreme SuperHyperCycle ends up but this 2153
essence starts up in the terms of the extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, again and more 2154
in the operations of collecting all the extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycles acted on the 2155
all possible used formations of the extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme 2156
number. This extreme number is 2157
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperCycles. 2158
Let zextreme Number , Sextreme SuperHyperSet and Gextreme SuperHyperCycle be a extreme 2159
number, a extreme SuperHyperSet and a extreme SuperHyperCycle. Then 2160
[zextreme Number ]extreme Class = {Sextreme SuperHyperSet |

Sextreme SuperHyperSet = Gextreme SuperHyperCycle ,
|Sextreme SuperHyperSet |extreme Cardinality
= zextreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the extreme SuperHyperCycle is 2161
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 2162
Gextreme SuperHyperCycle ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class =

∪zextreme Number {Sextreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 2163
technical definition for the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 2164
Gextreme SuperHyperCycle =
{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 2165
SuperHyperCycle poses the upcoming expressions. 2166
{S ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 2167
= max
zextreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 2168

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 2169


2170
= zextreme Number |

2171
= maxzextreme Number

2172

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “extreme 2173
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the extreme 2174
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices are 2175
incident to a extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “extreme 2176
Quasi-SuperHyperCycle” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “extreme 2177
Quasi-SuperHyperCycle” since “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperCycle” happens “extreme 2178
SuperHyperCycle” in a extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background 2179
but “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “extreme SuperHyperCycle” 2180
in a extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 2181
there are some ambiguities about the extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To 2182
get orderly keywords, the terms, “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “extreme 2183
Quasi-SuperHyperCycle”, and “extreme SuperHyperCycle” are up. 2184
Thus, let zextreme Number , Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and Gextreme SuperHyperCycle 2185
be a extreme number, a extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and a extreme 2186
SuperHyperCycle and the new terms are up. 2187

∪zextreme Number {Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |extreme Cardinality
2188
{Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class =
|Nextreme SuperHyperSet |extreme Cardinality
= zextreme Number |
2189
{Nextreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zextreme Number [zextreme Number ]extreme Class |
2190
|Nextreme SuperHyperSet |extreme Cardinality = max zextreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 2191


2192
= zextreme Number |

2193
= max
zextreme Number

2194

Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 2195
extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle if for any 2196
of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 2197
extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 2198
are coming up. 2201




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


is only and only


To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all 2210
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle if 2211
for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 2212
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 2213
no extreme exception at all minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 2214
them. 2215
Proposition 4.7. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 2216
extreme R-SuperHyperCycle only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and 2217
all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where 2218
there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 2219
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 2220
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 2221
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2222
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a extreme 2223
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 2224
Consider all extreme numbers of those extreme SuperHyperVertices from that extreme 2225
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, 2226
exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. 2227
Consider there’s a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle with the least cardinality, the lower 2228
sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality. Assume a connected extreme 2229
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2230
SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme 2231
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme 2232
SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle. Since it 2233
doesn’t have the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2234
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 2235
SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2236
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme 2237
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a extreme 2238
R-SuperHyperCycle. Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure such that such that 2239
there’s a extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely 2240
[there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in 2241
the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a extreme SuperHyperVertex, 2242
titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that extreme SuperHyperVertex in the 2243
extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the extreme procedure”.]. There’s only 2244
one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 2245
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 2246
extreme R-SuperHyperCycle, VESHE is up. The obvious simple extreme 2247
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle, VESHE , is a extreme 2248
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any 2249
kind of extreme pairs are titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected extreme 2250
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2251
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality of 2252
a extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 2253
extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in 2254
a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any extreme 2255
R-SuperHyperCycle only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 2256
exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where 2257
are coming up. 2263




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




is only and only



To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2272
Any extreme R-SuperHyperCycle only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices 2273
and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 2274
where there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s 2275
all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 2276
Remark 4.8. The words “ extreme SuperHyperCycle” and “extreme 2279
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum extreme type-style. In other words, 2280
they refer to the maximum extreme SuperHyperNumber and the extreme 2281
SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 2282
Proposition 4.9. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2283
Consider a extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then a extreme SuperHyperCycle has the 2284
members poses only one extreme representative in a extreme 2285
quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2286
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a 2287
extreme SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the extreme results 2288
are up. Thus on a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a 2289
extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then a extreme SuperHyperCycle has the members 2290
poses only one extreme representative in a extreme quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2291
5 Results on extreme SuperHyperClasses 2292
The previous extreme approaches apply on the upcoming extreme results on extreme 2293
SuperHyperClasses. 2294
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2295
a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle-style with the maximum extreme 2296
SuperHyperCardinality is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2297
SuperHyperVertices. 2298
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2299
a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle is a extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2300
SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme 2301
SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any 2302
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the extreme unique SuperHyperEdges. a 2303
extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle has the extreme number of all the interior extreme 2304
SuperHyperVertices. Also, 2305
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycle
|EESHG:(V,E) |extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)extremeQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP 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-SuperHyperCycle
since neither amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices
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 a 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-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle is the cardinality of
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle. 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 2306
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 2307
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 2308
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 2309
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the extreme 2310
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 2311
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 2312
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 2313
The extreme structure of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle 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 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-SuperHyperCycle. 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 a extreme
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a
extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has the extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperEdge.
Thus, a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has the extreme cardinality at least a extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Assume a extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This extreme
SuperHyperSet isn’t a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle 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 a extreme contradiction with the term “extreme
R-SuperHyperCycle” 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
SuperHyperSet



Assume a 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 } .
z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2319

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 2328
The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has two titles. a extreme 2372


= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 2395



2397
= zextreme Number |

2398

2399


2415
= zextreme Number |
2416
2417


2419
= zextreme Number |

2420
= max
zextreme Number

2421

are coming up. 2428




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


is only and only


them. 2442
Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a extreme 2443
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. There’s neither empty 2482
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 2483
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme 2484
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperCycle. The extreme SuperHyperSet of 2485
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 2486
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex 2492
of a extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 2493
all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two extreme SuperHyperVertices 2494
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 2495
SuperHyperCycle is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 2496
extreme SuperHyperCycle is a extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme 2497
SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2498
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 2500
extreme SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the 2502
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 2508
that there’s no a extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given 2509
by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperCycle and it’s an 2510
extreme SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of a 2511
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 2512
there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex of a extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and 2513
there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t 2514
only less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 2515
SuperHyperSet, 2516
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperCycle, not: 2519
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 2520
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 2521
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 2522
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected extreme SuperHyperPath 2529
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 2530
extreme SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperCycle. 2531
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2532
Then a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle is a extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2533
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions on the form of interior 2534
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not 2535
excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex. a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle has the 2536
Figure 21. a extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme SuperHy-

perCycle in the Example (5.3)
extreme half number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum 2537
extreme cardinality. Also, 2538
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.



literally,



SuperHyperSet



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
2552

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


= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 2628



2630
= zextreme Number |

2631

2632


2648
= zextreme Number |
2649
2650


2652
= zextreme Number |

2653
= max
zextreme Number

2654

are coming up. 2661




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


is only and only


them. 2675
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
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperSet, 2749
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
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle 2762
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, in 2763
the extreme SuperHyperModel (22), is the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 2764
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 2765
a extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle is a extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2766
SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to a extreme SuperHyperEdge. a extreme 2767
Figure 22. a extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme

SuperHyperCycle in the extreme Example (5.5)
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the one 2768
extreme SuperHyperEdge. Also, 2769
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|extreme Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

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



literally,



SuperHyperSet



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
2783

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


= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 2859



2861
= zextreme Number |

2862

2863


2879
= zextreme Number |
2880
2881


2883
= zextreme Number |

2884
= max
zextreme Number

2885

are coming up. 2892




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


is only and only


them. 2906
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

SuperHyperSet, 2980
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {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 2993
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by 2994
the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 2995
connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel 2996
(23), is the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 2997
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 2998
Then a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle is a extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2999
SuperHyperVertices with no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme 3000
Figure 23. a extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme

SuperHyperCycle in the extreme Example (5.7)
SuperHyperVertices titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle 3001
has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of the minimum 3002
SuperHyperPart minus those have common extreme SuperHyperNeighbors and not 3003
unique extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3004
min |PESHG:(V,E) |extreme Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)extremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .



literally,



SuperHyperSet



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
3018

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


= zextreme Number |
= max
zextreme Number

And then, 3094



3096
= zextreme Number |

3097

3098


3114
= zextreme Number |
3115
3116


3118
= zextreme Number |

3119
= max
zextreme Number

3120

are coming up. 3127




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


is only and only


them. 3141
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 3215
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.9. In the extreme Figure (24), the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite 3228
ESHB : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 3229
SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 3230
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in 3231
the extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 3232
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3233
ESHM : (V, E). Then a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle is a extreme SuperHyperSet of the 3234
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exception in the extreme form 3235
of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from a extreme SuperHyperPart and only no 3236
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 3237
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than some of them aren’t 3238
SuperHyperNeighbors to all. a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has the extreme maximum 3239
number on all the extreme summation on the extreme cardinality of the all extreme 3240
SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus those make extreme 3241
SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 3242
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Figure 24. a extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme Notions

of extreme SuperHyperCycle in the Example (5.9)



literally,



SuperHyperSet



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
3256

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


= zextreme Number |

And then, 3332



3334
= zextreme Number |

3335

3336


3352
= zextreme Number |
3353
3354


3356
= zextreme Number |

3357

3358

are coming up. 3365





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



is only and only


them. 3379
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 3453
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Figure 25. a extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme

SuperHyperCycle in the Example (5.11)
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3466
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 3467
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 3468
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 3469
in the extreme SuperHyperModel (25), is the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 3470
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 3471
Then a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle is a extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 3472
SuperHyperVertices, excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in 3473
the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme SuperHyperEdge 3474
with the exclusion on extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them and not all. a 3475
extreme R-SuperHyperCycle has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme 3476
number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges don’t have common extreme 3477
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3478
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.



literally,



SuperHyperSet


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
3492

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


= zextreme Number |

And then, 3568



3570
= zextreme Number |

3571

3572


3588
= zextreme Number |
3589
3590


3592
= zextreme Number |

3593

3594

are coming up. 3601




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

is only and only


them. 3615
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
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperSet, 3689
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
.
Figure 26. a extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions of

extreme SuperHyperCycle 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 3702
N SHW : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme 3703
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 3704
of the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the extreme 3705
SuperHyperModel (26), is the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 3706
6 General extreme Results 3707
For the SuperHyperCycle, extreme SuperHyperCycle, and the extreme 3708
SuperHyperCycle, some general results are introduced. 3709
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the extreme SuperHyperCycle is “redefined” on the 3710
positions of the alphabets. 3711
Corollary 6.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperCycle. Then 3712
extreme SuperHyperCycle =
{theSuperHyperCycleof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|extremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperCycle. }
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 3713
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 3714
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 3715
Corollary 6.3. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the 3716
alphabet. Then the notion of extreme SuperHyperCycle and SuperHyperCycle coincide. 3717
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a extreme 3719
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a SuperHyperCycle. 3720
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 3722
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 3723
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 3724
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperCycle is its 3725
SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 3726
Corollary 6.7. Assume a extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 3727
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 3728
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperCycle is its 3729
SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 3730
Corollary 6.8. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 3731
SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined. 3732
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 3733
extreme SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle isn’t 3734
well-defined. 3735
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 3737
Then its extreme SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 3738
isn’t well-defined. 3739
Corollary 6.11. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 3740
SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle is well-defined. 3741
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 3742
extreme SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle is 3743
well-defined. 3744
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 3746
Then its extreme SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle is 3747
well-defined. 3748
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 3749
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3750
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3751
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3752
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3753
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3754
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3755
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3756
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3757
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3758
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following 3759
statements are equivalent. 3760
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3761
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3763
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3765
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3767
∀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.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperCycle since the following statements are 3769
equivalent. 3770
∀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.
3771
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 3772
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3773
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3774
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3775
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3776
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3777
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3778
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3779
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3780
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3781
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following statements 3782
are equivalent. 3783
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3784
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3786
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following statements 3788
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3790
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 3792
∀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.
3794
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3795
independent SuperHyperSet is 3796
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3797
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3798
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3799
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3800
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3801
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3802
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 3803
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3804
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle 3806
since the following statements are equivalent. 3807
∀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 3808
SuperHyperCycle since the following statements are equivalent. 3809
∀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 3810
∀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 SuperHyperCycle 3812
since the following statements are equivalent. 3813
∀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 3814
∀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.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3816
∀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.
3818
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperUniform 3819
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 3820
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3821
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3822
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3823
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3824
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3825
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3826
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3827
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 3828
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3829
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3830
SuperHyperCycle. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 3831
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 3832
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3833
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3834
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3835
∀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 3836
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3837
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3838
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. This segment 3839
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3840
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3841
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3842
∀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.
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3845
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3846
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Thus 3847
it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3848
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3849
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 3850
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3851
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3852
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3853
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3854
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3855
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3856
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3857
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3858
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 3859
which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3860
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 3863
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3864
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3865
∀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 3867
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 3868
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3870
Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3871
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 3874
(i) : the SuperHyperCycle; 3875
(ii) : the SuperHyperCycle; 3876
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperCycle; 3877
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 3878
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 3879
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle. 3880
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3881
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3882
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 3883
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3884
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 3887
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3888
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3889
∀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.
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3892
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3893
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. This segment 3894
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3895
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3896
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3897
∀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.
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3900
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Thus 3902
it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3903
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3906
(i) : the dual SuperHyperCycle; 3907
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperCycle; 3908
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperCycle; 3909
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 3910
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 3911
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle. 3912
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3913
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 3915
which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3916
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 3919
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3920
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3921
∀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 3923
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperUniform 3924
SuperHyperWheel. 3925
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3927
Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3928
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 3931
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3932
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 3933
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3934
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3938
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3939
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3940
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 3941
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3942
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3943
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3944
∀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 SuperHyperCycle in 3945
a given SuperHyperStar. 3946
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3947
SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3948
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. 3950
SuperHyperCycle and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 3952
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3953
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 3955
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3956

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Thus 3958
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3959
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3963
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3964
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3965
is a 3966
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3970
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 3971
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3972
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3973
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3974
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has 3975
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 3976
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle in a 3977
given SuperHyperStar. 3978
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3979
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3980
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3981
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3982
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3984
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3985
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3986
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3987
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3988
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar 3990
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3991
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Thus it’s an 3993
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 3994
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 3998
number of 3999
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4003
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4004
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4005
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 4006
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 4007
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4008
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 4011
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4012
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 4013
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4017
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. 4019
SuperHyperCycle and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 4021
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4022
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 4024
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 4025

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Thus 4027
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4028
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 4030
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 4031
(iv) : SuperHyperCycle; 4035
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4036
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4037
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4038
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some 4039
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 4040
∀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 SuperHyperCycle 4041
and number of connected component is |V − S|. 4042
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Thus it’s a dual 4044
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4045
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 4047
number is 4048
at most O(ESHG) and the extreme number is 4049
at most On (ESHG). 4050
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 4051
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 4052
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4053
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following statements 4054
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following statements are 4056
equivalent. 4057
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 4058
∀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.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following statements are 4060
equivalent. 4061
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 4062
∀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 SuperHyperCycle since the following 4064
∀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 SuperHyperCycle and V is the biggest 4066
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is 4067
at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the extreme number is 4068
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 4069
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 4070
SuperHyperComplete. The number is 4071

O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the extreme number is 4072
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 4073
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4077
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4079
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4080
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 4081
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4082
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4084

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 4086
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4087
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4088
∀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 4091
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number 4092
is 4093
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4095
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4097
∀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 4100
is 4102
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4104
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4106
∀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 4109
is 4111
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4115
∀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 4118
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle in a given 4119
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4120

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4122
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4124
∀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 4127
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle in a given 4128
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4129

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4131
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The 4133
number is 4134
0 and the extreme number is 4135
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 4136
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4140
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4141
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4142
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 4143
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4144
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following 4146
∀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 4148
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4150
SuperHyperCycle. 4151
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following 4152
∀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 4154
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4156
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the 4158
following statements are equivalent. 4159
∀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 4160
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 4162
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following 4164
∀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 4166
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive 4168
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the following 4170
∀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.
The number is 4172
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4174
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle since the 4176
following statements are equivalent. 4177
∀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 4178
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive 4180
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 4183
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 4185
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the extreme number is 4186
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 4187
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4191
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4192
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4193
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 4194
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 4195
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4196
SuperHyperCycle. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 4197
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 4198
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4199
∀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 4200
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperCycle. 4201
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4202
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 4204
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4205
∀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.
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperPath. 4207
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4208
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 4210
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4211
∀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.
SuperHyperCycle in a given SuperHyperWheel. 4213
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4215
Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4216
Thus the number is 4218
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the extreme number is 4219
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4220
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 4223
number is 4224
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 4234
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4235
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 4236
∀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 4239
∀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. 4242
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4243
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle and they are chosen from different 4244
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 4245
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4246
∀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 SuperHyperCycle 4247
in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor 4248
complete SuperHyperBipartite. 4249

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4251
SuperHyperCycle. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 4252
Thus the number is 4255

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 4257
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 4259
extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 4260
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 4261
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 4262
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 4263
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 4264
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 4265
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 4266
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 4267
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 4268
(ii) vx ∈ E. 4269
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4270
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, 4271
∀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 4272
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, 4273
∀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.
4274
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 4275
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then 4276
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 4277
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 4278
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4279
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, either 4280
∀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 4281
∀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. 4282
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4283
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, either 4284
∀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 4285
∀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. 4286
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 4287
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 4288
number. 4289
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 4290
(i) Γ ≤ O; 4291
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 4292
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 4293
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. For all SuperHyperSets 4294
of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 4295
S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So 4296
for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 4297
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 4298
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. For all SuperHyperSets 4299
of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of extreme 4300
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 4301
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all 4302
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 4303
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 4304
connected. Then 4305
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 4306
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4307
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let 4308
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4309
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. For all 4310
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4311
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 4312
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 4313
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 4314
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Let 4315
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4316
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. For all 4317
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4318
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices 4319
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4320
extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 4321
SuperHyperSets of extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4322
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 4323
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4324
SuperHyperCycle; 4325
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4326
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4327
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4328
a dual SuperHyperCycle. 4329
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 4330
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4331
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. If 4332
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4333
∃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 4334
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4335
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 4337
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4338
SuperHyperCycle. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4339
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4340
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4341
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4342
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 4348
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4349
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 4350
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 4351
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4352
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4353
dual SuperHyperCycle. 4354
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4355
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4356
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. If 4357
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4358
∃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 4359
SuperHyperCycle. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4360
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4363
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4364
SuperHyperCycle. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4365
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 4372
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4373
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 4375
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4376
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 4377
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4378
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4380
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4381
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. If 4382
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4383
∃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 4384
SuperHyperCycle. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4385
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4388
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4389
SuperHyperCycle. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4390
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 4397
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4398
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4400
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4401
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4402
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 4404
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 })|
∃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 4412
SuperHyperCycle. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4413
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4414
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4415
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4416
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 4422
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle; 4423
(ii) Γ = 1; 4424
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 4425
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperCycle. 4426
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4427
∀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 = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. If 4428
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4429
∃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 SuperHyperCycle. It induces 4430
S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4431
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Thus it’s 4433
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Suppose 4434
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4435
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4436
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 4437
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4438
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4439
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 4440
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 4441
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 4442
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4443
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 4444

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 4445
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 4446
∀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 4447
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. If 4448

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4449
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 4450
∀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 )|
or 4451
∀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 4452
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4453
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperCycle. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 4454
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4455
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 4456
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 4457
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4458
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 4460
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 4461
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4462
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 4464

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 4465
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 SuperHyperCycle. If 4466
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4467
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 4468
bn c+1
SuperHyperCycle. It induces S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4469
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 4472
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4473
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 4474
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 4475
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4476
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4478
Thus 4479
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 SuperHyperCycle. If 4480
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4481
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
SuperHyperCycle. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4483
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of extreme 4486
SuperHyperStars with common extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 4487
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4488
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 4489
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 4490
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 4491
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 4492
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). 4493
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4494
∀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 SuperHyperCycle for 4495
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4496
∃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 SuperHyperCycle for 4497
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 4498
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). 4499
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle 4501
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 4502
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is 4503
a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4504
∀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 SuperHyperCycle for 4505
N SHF : (V, E). 4506
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 4507
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 4508
SuperHyperSet. Then 4509
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4510
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 4511
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 4512
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4513
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 4514
N SHF : (V, E). 4515
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4516
Thus 4517
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 SuperHyperCycle for 4518
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 4519
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
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4521
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 4524
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 4525
SuperHyperSet. Then 4526
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle 4527
for N SHF : (V, E); 4528
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 4529
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4530
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 4531
N SHF : (V, E). 4532
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4533
Thus 4534
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 SuperHyperCycle for 4535
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4536
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
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4538
following statements hold; 4542
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4543
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 4544
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4546
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 4547
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4549
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4550
Then 4551
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4552
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4553
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4554
SuperHyperCycle. Then 4555
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4556
following statements hold; 4558
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4559
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4560
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4562
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 4563
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4565
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4566
Then 4567
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. By S is an 4568
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 4569
SuperHyperCycle, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperCycle. 4570
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4571
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4572
SuperHyperCycle. Then 4573
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. By S is an 4574
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive 4575
SuperHyperCycle, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperCycle. 4576
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4577
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 4578
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4581
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4583
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4585
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4586
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4587
SuperHyperGraph. Then 4588
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 SuperHyperCycle. 4589
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4590
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 SuperHyperCycle. 4592
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4593
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4595
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4596
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4598
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 4599
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 4600
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4603
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4605
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4607
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4608
∀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
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Then 4612
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4614
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. Then 4616
∀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.
4617
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4619
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4622
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4624
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4627
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Then 4629
∀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
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Then 4631
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4633
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. Then 4635
∀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.
4636
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4638
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4641
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 4643
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 4644
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4646
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4648
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 SuperHyperCycle. 4655
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. 4658
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 4660
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4661
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4663
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4665
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. Then 4670
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. Then 4672
∀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.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 4674
∀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 SuperHyperCycle. Then 4676
∀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.
4677
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 4679
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4680
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4682
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4684
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 4689
∀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.
∀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 4700
Recognition 4701
The cancer is the extreme disease but the extreme model is going to figure out what’s 4702
going on this extreme phenomenon. The special extreme case of this extreme disease is 4703
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 4704
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 4705
matter of mind. The extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some extreme 4706
treatments for this extreme disease. 4707
In the following, some extreme steps are extreme devised on this disease. 4708
Step 1. (extreme Definition) The extreme recognition of the cancer in the 4709
long-term extreme function. 4710
Step 2. (extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the extreme 4711
model [it’s called extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long extreme cycle of the 4712
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 4713
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 4714
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 4715
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be extreme SuperHyperGraph] 4716
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 4717
Step 3. (extreme Model) There are some specific extreme models, which are 4718
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general extreme models. The 4719
moves and the extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 4720
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a extreme 4721
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 4722
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 4723
extreme SuperHyperCycle or the extreme SuperHyperCycle in those extreme 4724
extreme SuperHyperModels. 4725
8 Case 1: The Initial extreme Steps Toward 4726
extreme SuperHyperBipartite as extreme 4727
SuperHyperModel 4728
Step 4. (extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (27), the extreme 4729
SuperHyperBipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 4730
By using the extreme Figure (27) and the Table (4), the extreme 4731
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4732
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 4733
extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 4734
Figure 27. a extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme

SuperHyperCycle
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 4735
the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 4736
9 Case 2: The Increasing extreme Steps Toward 4737
extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as extreme 4738
SuperHyperModel 4739
Step 4. (extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (28), the extreme 4740
SuperHyperMultipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 4741
By using the extreme Figure (28) and the Table (5), the extreme 4742
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 4743
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 4744
result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 4745
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (28), 4746
is the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 4747
10 Open Problems 4748
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4749
Figure 28. a extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme

SuperHyperCycle
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
The SuperHyperCycle and the extreme SuperHyperCycle are defined on a real-world 4750
application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4751
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 4752
recognitions? 4753
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperCycle and 4754
the extreme SuperHyperCycle? 4755
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 4756
compute them? 4757
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 4758
SuperHyperCycle and the extreme SuperHyperCycle? 4759
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperCycle and the extreme SuperHyperCycle do a 4760
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperCycle, 4761
are there else? 4762
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4763
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4764
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4765
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4766
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4767
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 4768
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 4769
highlighted. 4770
This research uses some approaches to make extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 4771
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 4772
SuperHyperCycle. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 4773
extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the 4774
new definition for the extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, extreme 4775
SuperHyperCycle, finds the convenient background to implement some results based on 4776
that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of 4777
this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer 4778
to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 4779
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperCycle, the new 4780
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are 4781
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperCycle and the extreme SuperHyperCycle. 4782
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 4783
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 4784
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 4785
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 4786
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 4787
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 4788
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 4789
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 4790
formally called “ SuperHyperCycle” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 4791
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 4792
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this 4793
research are pointed out. 4794
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperCycle
3. extreme SuperHyperCycle 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
References 4795
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4796
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 4797
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4798
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 4799
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 4800
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 4801
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 4802
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 4803
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 4804
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 4805
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 4806
(2022) 242-263. 4807
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 4808
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 4809
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4810
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4811
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 4812
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 4813
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 4814
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 4815
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 4816
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 4817
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 4818
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 4819
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 4820
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 4821
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 4822
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 4823
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 4824
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 4825
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 4826
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 4827
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4828
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 4829
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 4830
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 4831
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 4832
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 4833
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 4834
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 4835
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 4836
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 4837
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 4838
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 4839
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4840
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4841
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4842
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 4843
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 4844
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4845
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 4846
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 4847
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4848
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4849
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4850
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 4851
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4852
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4853
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4854
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4855
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4856
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4857
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4858
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4859
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4860
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4861
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4862
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 4863
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4864
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4866
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4867
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4868
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 4869
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4870
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4871
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 4872
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 4873
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 4874
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4875
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4876
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4877
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 4878
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4879
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4880
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4881
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4882
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4883
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 4884
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 4885
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4886
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4887
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 4888
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 4889
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 4890
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 4891
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 4892
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 4893
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 4894
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4895
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4896
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4897
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4898
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 4899
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 4900
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 4901
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 4902
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4903
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4904
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4906
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4907
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4908
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 4909
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4910
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4911
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4912
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4913
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4914
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4915
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4918
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4919
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4920
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4921
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4922
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4923
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4924
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4925
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4926
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4927
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4928
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4929
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4930
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4931
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4932
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4933
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4934
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4935
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4936
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4937
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4938
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4939
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4940
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 4941
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 4942
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 4943
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 4944
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 4945
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 4946
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 4947
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 4948
View publication stats

Cancer's Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph by The Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles On Super Mess

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

Cancer's Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph by The Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles On Super Mess

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Cancer's Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By the Criteria of

Preprint · January 2023

275 PUBLICATIONS 2,428 CITATIONS

On Fuzzy Logic View project

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 2

By the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As 3

Hyper Modified Cycles On Super Mess 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 9

SuperHyperCycle and extreme SuperHyperCycle. Two different types of 10

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 12

well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 13

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 15

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 16

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “extreme 24

SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. 25

problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a extreme SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) 29

for a extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 30

SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 31

SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have 32

a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a extreme SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for 33

a extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of a 34

extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme SuperHyperEdges such 35

that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in a extreme SuperHyperEdge and 36

there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have a extreme SuperHyperVertex in a extreme 37

SuperHyperEdge; a extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a 38

extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 39

contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a 40

SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 41

SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have 42

a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its 43

coefficient; a extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a 44

extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 45

extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme 47

SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in a extreme 48

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have a extreme 49

SuperHyperVertex in a extreme SuperHyperEdge and the extreme power is extremely 50

corresponded to its extreme coefficient; a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a 51

extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 52

SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 53

SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have 54

a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) 55

for a extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of 56

a extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality extreme SuperHyperVertices 57

such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in a extreme SuperHyperEdge 58

and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have a extreme SuperHyperVertex in a 59

extreme SuperHyperEdge; a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial 60

C(N SHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 61

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum 62

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that 63

there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 64

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is 65

corresponded to its coefficient; a extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial 66

C(N SHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 67

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number 68

of the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme 69

cardinality extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex 70

not to in a extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge to have a 71

extreme SuperHyperVertex in a extreme SuperHyperEdge and the extreme power is 72