A Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As Hyper Covering Versus Super Separations-I

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368290537
A Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As Hyper Covering Versus
Super separations-I
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
284 PUBLICATIONS 2,852 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 06 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and 3
Hamiltonian Sets As Hyper Covering Versus Super 4
separations-I 5
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 7
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 8
ABSTRACT 9
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 10
SuperHyperCycle and neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle . Two different types of 11
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 12
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 15
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 18
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 19
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 20
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 21
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 22
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 23
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 24
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 25
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 26
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 27
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 28
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 29
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a neutrosophic 30
SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 31
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 32
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 33
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 34
SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 35
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36
neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 37
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 38
no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 39
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial 40
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 41
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum 42
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s 43
no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to 44
have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its 45
coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a 46
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 47
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 48
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 49
SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such 50
that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic 51
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic 52
SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is 53
neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; a neutrosophic 54
R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 55
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices 56
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 57
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 58
R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 59
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60
neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 61
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 62
no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 63
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle 64
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 65
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients 66
defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high 67
cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 68
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 69
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 70
R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 72
the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 73
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 74
cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 76
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 77
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 78
corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 79
δ−SuperHyperCycle is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality 80
such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 81
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and 82
|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 83
δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 84
δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperCycle is a maximal neutrosophic 85
of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 86
following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 87
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; and 88
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if 89
S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is a 90
neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a 91
SuperHyperCycle . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 92
SuperHyperCycle more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperCycle ”. 94
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 95
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 96
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperCycle . It’s redefined a neutrosophic 97
SuperHyperCycle if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 98
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic 99
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of 100
Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 101
Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 102
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 103
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 104
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 105
based on a SuperHyperCycle . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation 106
of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all 107
SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperCycle, then it’s officially called a 108
“SuperHyperCycle” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperCycle . There are some instances 109
about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperCycle ”. These two 110
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 111
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperCycle . For the sake of 112
having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 113
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” and a “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ”. The 114
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 115
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 116
assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 117
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperCycle 118
are redefined to a “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” if the intended Table holds. It’s 119
useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 120
to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle more 121
understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 122
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 123
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 124
SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic 125
SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 126
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 127
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 128
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic 129
value from all the SuperHyperCycle amid the maximum value amid all 130
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperCycle .] SuperHyperCycle . A graph is a 131
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 132
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 133
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 134
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 135
SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 136
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 137
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 138
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 139
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 140
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 141
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 142
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 143
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 144
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 145
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 146
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 147
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 148
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 149
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 150
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 151
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 152
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 153
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 154
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 155
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 156
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 157
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 158
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 159
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 160
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 161
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 162
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 163
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 164
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 165
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperCycle or the strongest 166
SuperHyperCycle in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 167
SuperHyperCycle, called SuperHyperCycle, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called 168
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 169
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 170
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 171
of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, 172
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 173
A basic familiarity with neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 174
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 175
Keywords: neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (neutrosophic) SuperHyperCycle, 176
Cancer’s neutrosophic Recognition 177
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 178
1 Wondering open Problems But As The Directions 179
To Forming The Motivations 180
In what follows, some “Neutrosophic problems” and some “Neutrosophic questions” are 181
Neutrosophicly proposed. 182
The SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle are Neutrosophicly 183
defined on a real-world Neutrosophic application, titled “Cancer’s neutrosophic 184
recognitions”. 185
Question 1.1. Which the else neutrosophic SuperHyperModels could be defined based 186
on Cancer’s neutrosophic recognitions? 187
Question 1.2. Are there some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions related to 188
SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle? 189
Question 1.3. Are there some Neutrosophic Algorithms to be defined on the 190
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels to compute them Neutrosophicly? 191
Question 1.4. Which the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 192
SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle? 193
Problem 1.5. The SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle do 194
Neutrosophicly a neutrosophic SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s neutrosophic 195
recognitions and they’re based Neutrosophicly on neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, are 196
there else Neutrosophicly? 197
Problem 1.6. Which the fundamental Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers are related to 198
these Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 199
Problem 1.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s neutrosophic 200
recognitions concerning the multiple types of neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions? 201
2 The Departures on The Theoretical Results 202
Toward Theoretical Motivations 203
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on 204
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 205
Proposition 2.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 206
Then a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle-style with the maximum neutrosophic 207
SuperHyperCardinality is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 208
SuperHyperVertices. 209
Proposition 2.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 210
Then a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 211
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in the 212
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 213
SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 214
the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges. a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle has 215
the neutrosophic number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Also, 216
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle since neither amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor
amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the neutrosophic
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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we
assume in the worst case, literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
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
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their 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 217
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 218
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 219
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 220
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 221
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 222
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 223
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 224
The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle decorates the

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any neutrosophic connections so
as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from the
fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the
targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection.
Furthermore, the neutrosophic existence of one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no
neutrosophic effect to talk about the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle. Since at least
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the neutrosophic
background of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but at least two
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the neutrosophic version of neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the neutrosophic setting of non-obvious neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary
to mention that the word “Simple” is used as neutrosophic adjective for the initial
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no neutrosophic appearance of the loop
neutrosophic version of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the basic
neutrosophic framework engages one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this neutrosophic setting. With these neutrosophic bases, on a neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at
least a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has the neutrosophic cardinality of a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has the
neutrosophic cardinality at least a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle since either the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is an
obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no
neutrosophic usage of this neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no
neutrosophic connection inside or the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and
as its consequences, there’s a neutrosophic contradiction with the term “neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperCycle” since the maximum neutrosophic cardinality never happens for
this neutrosophic style of the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no
neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first neutrosophic case in the forms of
drawback for this selected neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This neutrosophic case implies having the neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle neutrosophic style on the every neutrosophic elements of this
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle is the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that some
neutrosophic amount of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle
neutrosophic style. The neutrosophic cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
But the lower neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality ends up the neutrosophic discussion. The first
neutrosophic term refers to the neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
neutrosophic style amid some amount of its neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no neutrosophic amount of
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The neutrosophic cardinality of this neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices taken from the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used 225
neutrosophic background in the neutrosophic terms of worst neutrosophic case and the 226
common theme of the lower neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific neutrosophic 227
SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are neutrosophic 228
free-quasi-triangle. 229
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic

number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in common.
Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
potentially included in a neutrosophic style-R-SuperHyperCycle. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic 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
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle but
with slightly differences in the maximum neutrosophic cardinality amid those
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the neutrosophic 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, 230
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
231
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 232
R-SuperHyperCycle is at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic 233
SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 234
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 235
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum neutrosophic number of 236
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in 237
some cases but the maximum number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 238
maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 239
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle. 240
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 241
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 242
addresses some issues about the neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 243
delivers some remarks on the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 244
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 245
for distinct amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that 246
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but this 247
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either has the 248
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 249
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 250
least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all neutrosophic 251
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle where the 252
neutrosophic completion of the neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, 253
a neutrosophic embedded R-SuperHyperCycle. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 254
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 255
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 256
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 257
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. 258
The less than two distinct types of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the 259
minimum neutrosophic style of the embedded neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle. The 260
interior types of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the 261
neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 262
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 263
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any 264
distinct types of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the neutrosophic 265
R-SuperHyperCycle. Thus neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only 266
in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 267
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 268
embedded neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s the usage of exterior neutrosophic 269
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 270
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One neutrosophic 271
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 272
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 273
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the neutrosophic 274
R-SuperHyperCycle. The neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle with the exclusion of the 275
exclusion of all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 276
and with other terms, the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle with the inclusion of all 277
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a 278
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 279
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic 280
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct 281
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic 282
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 283
but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic 284
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct neutrosophic 285
SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, minus all 286
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 287
The main definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has two titles. a 288
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle and its corresponded quasi-maximum 289
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 290
any neutrosophic number, there’s a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle with that 291
quasi-maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 292
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded neutrosophic 293
SuperHyperGraph, then the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 294
collection of all the neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycles for all neutrosophic 295
numbers less than its neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 296
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 297
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, again and more in the operations of collecting 298
all the neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycles acted on the all possible used 299
formations of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one neutrosophic number. 300
This neutrosophic number is 301
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperCycles. 302
Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic SuperHyperCycle be a 303
neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a neutrosophic 304
SuperHyperCycle. Then 305
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is 306
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 307
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 308
technical definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 309
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperCycle =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the neutrosophic 310
SuperHyperCycle poses the upcoming expressions. 311
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 312
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 313

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 314


315

316

317

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 318
“neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 319
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its neutrosophic 320
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 321
another name for “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle” but, precisely, it’s the 322
generalization of “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle” since “neutrosophic 323
Quasi-SuperHyperCycle” happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” in a neutrosophic 324
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “neutrosophic 325
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” in a 326
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 327
there are some ambiguities about the neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. 328
To get orderly keywords, the terms, “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 329
“neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” are up. 330
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 331
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperCycle be a neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic 332
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and the new terms are 333
up. 334

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
335
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
336
337
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality = max zNeutrosoph
And with go back to initial structure, 338


339

340

341

Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 342
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle 343
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some 344
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all minus all neutrosophic 346
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 347
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 348
are coming up. 349
The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle.
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle.

The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is related to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. The
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

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

SuperHyperCycle, not:
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 350
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 351
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 352
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 353
“neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle” 354
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 355
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle, 356
is only and only
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle amid those
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle,

are
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 357
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 358
The all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic 359
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 360
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 361
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all 362
minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 363
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 364
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic 366
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 367
than r distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 369
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 370
neutrosophic bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 371
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 372
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 373
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 374
to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a neutrosophic 375
R-SuperHyperCycle. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 376
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 377
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 378
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} 379
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 380
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle. Since 381
it doesn’t do the neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a neutrosophic 382
SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at 383
least one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the 384
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic 385
SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic 386
SuperHyperVertex in the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the 387
neutrosophic procedure”.]. There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside 388
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of neutrosophic 389
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle, VESHE 390
is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 391
R-SuperHyperCycle, VESHE , is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 392
all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of neutrosophic pairs are 393
titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 394
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 395
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 396
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a neutrosophic 397
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 398
SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 399
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any neutrosophic 400
R-SuperHyperCycle only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all 401
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 402
SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 403
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with 404
no exception minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of 405
them but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 406
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 407
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. There’s neither empty 408
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 409
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 410
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 412

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 413
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 414
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 415

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 416
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 417
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 418
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no neutrosophic 419
SuperHyperVertex of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 420
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 421
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. The 423
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 424
SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 426

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 428
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 429
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 430
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 431

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 432
SuperHyperCycle. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 433

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 435
ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 436
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 437
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 438
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 439
Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 440
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 441
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is 442
common and there’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic 443
SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 444
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 445

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 446

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 447
SuperHyperCycle, not: 448

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 449

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 450
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 451
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 452
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” 453
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 455
Figure 1. a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

SuperHyperCycle in the Example (2.3)
is only and only 456

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 2.3. In the Figure (1), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 458
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 459
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (1), is the SuperHyperCycle. 460
Proposition 2.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 461
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions on the 463
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic 464
SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. a 465
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle has the neutrosophic half number of all the 466
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality. 467
Also, 468

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle since neither amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor
amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the neutrosophic
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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

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

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

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

their 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 469
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 470
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 471
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 472
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 473
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 474
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 475
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 476
The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle decorates the

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any neutrosophic connections so
as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from the
fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the
targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection.

Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic


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

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
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
483


V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 493
The main definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has two titles. a 540



And then, 565



567

568

569

up. 586

587
588
589


591

592

593

are coming up. 601



SuperHyperVertices,

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


is only and only

are


of
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 616
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. There’s neither empty 660
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 661
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 662

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 665

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no neutrosophic 671
SuperHyperVertex of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 672
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 673
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 674
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. The 675
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 676
SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 677

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 680
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 681
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 682

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 687
ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 688
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 689
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 690
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 691
Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 692
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 693
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is 694
common and there’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic 695
SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 696
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 697

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperCycle, not: 700

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 701

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 702
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 703

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Figure 2. a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (2.5)
Example 2.5. In the Figure (2), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 710
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 711
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (2), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 712
Proposition 2.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 713
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to a neutrosophic 715
SuperHyperEdge. a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle has the neutrosophic number 716
of the neutrosophic cardinality of the one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Also, 717

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|Neutrosophic Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . . .
Example 2.7. In the Figure (3), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 718
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 719
by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic 720
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 721
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (3), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 722
Proposition 2.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 723
ESHB : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic 724
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no neutrosophic 725
exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic 726
SuperHyperNeighbors. a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has the neutrosophic 727
maximum number of on neutrosophic cardinality of the minimum SuperHyperPart minus 728
Figure 3. a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (2.7)
those have common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors and not unique neutrosophic 729
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 730

min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .
Example 2.9. In the neutrosophic Figure (4), the connected neutrosophic 731
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic 732
featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 733
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 734
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 735
SuperHyperModel (4), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 736
Proposition 2.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 737
ESHM : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic 738
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no 739
neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic 740
SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 741
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 742
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than some of them aren’t 743
SuperHyperNeighbors to all. a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has the neutrosophic 744
maximum number on all the neutrosophic summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of 745
the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus those make 746
Figure 4. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-

sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the Example (2.9)
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 747

min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .
Example 2.11. In the Figure (5), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 748
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The obtained neutrosophic 749
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic 750
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 751
ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (5), is the neutrosophic 752
SuperHyperCycle. 753
Proposition 2.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 754
ESHW : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic 755
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 756
neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior 757
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 758
exclusion on neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them and not all. a 759
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the 760
neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges don’t have common 761
Figure 5. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutro-

sophic SuperHyperCycle in the Example (2.11)
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 762

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 2.13. In the neutrosophic Figure (6), the connected neutrosophic 763
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 764
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 765
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 766
ESHW : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (6), is the neutrosophic 767
3 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 769
Results But As The Initial Motivation 770
For the SuperHyperCycle, extreme SuperHyperCycle, and the neutrosophic 771
SuperHyperCycle, some general results are introduced. 772
Remark 3.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is “redefined” on the 773
positions of the alphabets. 774
Corollary 3.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperCycle. Then 775
N eutrosophic SuperHyperCycle =
{theSuperHyperCycleof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperCycle. }
Figure 6. a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutrosophic

Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (2.13)
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 776
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 777
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 778
Corollary 3.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 779
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and SuperHyperCycle 780
coincide. 781
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 783
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a SuperHyperCycle. 784
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 786
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 787
Corollary 3.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 788
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is its 789
SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 790
Corollary 3.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 791
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 792
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is its 793
SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 794
Corollary 3.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 795
SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined. 796
Corollary 3.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 797
its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 798
isn’t well-defined. 799
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its 802
SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined. 803
Corollary 3.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 804
SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle is well-defined. 805
Corollary 3.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 806
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 807
is well-defined. 808
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 811
is well-defined. 812
Proposition 3.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 813
is 814
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 815
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 816
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 817
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 818
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 819
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 820
Proposition 3.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 821
∅ is 822
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 823
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 824
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 825
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 826
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 827
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 828
Proposition 3.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 829
independent SuperHyperSet is 830
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 831
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 832
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 833
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 834
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 835
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 836
Proposition 3.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 837
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 838
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 839
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 840
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 841
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 842
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 843
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 844
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 845
Proposition 3.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 846
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 847
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 848
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 849
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 850
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 851
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 852
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 853
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 854
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 856
(i) : the SuperHyperCycle; 857
(ii) : the SuperHyperCycle; 858
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperCycle; 859
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 860
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 861
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle. 862
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 863
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 864
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 866
(i) : the dual SuperHyperCycle; 867
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperCycle; 868
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperCycle; 869
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 870
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 871
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle. 872
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 873
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 876
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 877
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 878
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 879
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 883
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 884
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 885
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 888
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 889
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 890
is a 891
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 895
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 896
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 897
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 900
number of 901
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 905
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 906
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 907
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 908
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 909
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 910
Proposition 3.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 912
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 913
(iv) : SuperHyperCycle; 917
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 918
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 919
Proposition 3.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 920
number is at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 921
Proposition 3.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 922
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 923
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 924
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 928
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 930
Proposition 3.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 931
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in 932
the setting of dual 933
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 937
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 938
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 939
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 941
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 943
and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 944
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 948
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 949
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 950
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 952
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 953
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 954
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 960
Proposition 3.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 961
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 962
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 963
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 964
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 965
Proposition 3.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 966
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 967
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 968
(ii) vx ∈ E. 969
Proposition 3.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 970
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then 971
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 972
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 973
Proposition 3.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 974
Then 975
(i) Γ ≤ O; 976
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 977
Proposition 3.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 978
which is connected. Then 979
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 980
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 981
Proposition 3.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 982
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 983
SuperHyperCycle; 984
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 985
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 986
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 987
a dual SuperHyperCycle. 988
Proposition 3.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 989
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 990
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 991
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 992
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 993
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 994
dual SuperHyperCycle. 995
Proposition 3.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 996
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 997
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 999
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1000
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1001
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1002
Proposition 3.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 1004
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1005
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1007
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1008
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1009
Proposition 3.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1011
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle; 1012
(ii) Γ = 1; 1013
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1014
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperCycle. 1015
Proposition 3.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1016
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1017
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 1018
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1019
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1020
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1021
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 1022
Proposition 3.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1023
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1024
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1026
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1027
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1028
Proposition 3.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1030
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 1031
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1032

bnc ; 1033
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1034
Proposition 3.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 1036
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1037
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1038
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 1039
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1040
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1041
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1042
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). 1043
Proposition 3.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1044
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1045
SuperHyperSet. Then 1046
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1047
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 1048
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1049

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1050
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 1051
N SHF : (V, E). 1052
Proposition 3.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1053
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1054
SuperHyperSet. Then 1055
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle 1056
for N SHF : (V, E); 1057
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1058

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1059
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 1060
N SHF : (V, E). 1061
Then following statements hold; 1063
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1064
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 1065
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1067
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 1068
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1072
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1073
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1075
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 1076
Proposition 3.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1078
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1079
statements hold; 1080
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1081
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 1082
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1083
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1085
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1087
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 1088
Proposition 3.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1089
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1090
statements hold; 1091
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1092
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1094
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1096
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1098
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 1099
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1101
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1102
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1103
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1105
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1107
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 1110
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1112
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1113
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1114
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1116
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1118
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 1119
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 1121
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 1123
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1125
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1127
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1129
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 1132
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 1134
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1136
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1138
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1140
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 1143
4 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 1144
Motivation Of This Research 1145
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 1146
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 1147
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 1148
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 1149
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 1150
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 1151
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 1152
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 1153
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 1154
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 1155
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 1156
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 1157
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 1158
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 1159
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 1160
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 1161
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 1162
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 1163
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 1164
called “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 1165
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 1166
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1167
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1168
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 1169
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1170
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 1171
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1172
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1173
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1174
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1175
formally called “ SuperHyperCycle” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 1176
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 1177
for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 1178
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 1179
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 1180
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 1181
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 1182
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 1183
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1184
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 1185
some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1186
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic neutrosophic 1187
SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1188
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the optimal 1189
SuperHyperCycle or the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in those neutrosophic 1190
SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 1191
SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 1192
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 1193
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 1194
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 1195
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 1196
Question 4.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 1197
find the “ amount of SuperHyperCycle” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells 1198
based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 1199
SuperHyperCycle” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 1200
Question 4.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 1201
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 1202
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 1203
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 1204
SuperHyperCycle” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 1205
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to 1206
define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 1207
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 1208
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 1209
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 1210
“Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 1211
5 Preliminaries Of This Research On the Redeemed 1212
Ways 1213
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 1214
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 1215
Definition 5.1 (neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 1216
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 1217
+
]− 0, 1 [. 1218
Definition 5.2 (Single Valued neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 1219
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 5.3. 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 5.4. 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 5.5 (neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [38],Definition 1220
2.5,p.2). 1221
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 1222
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 1223
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 1224
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 1225
1, 2, . . . , n); 1226
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 1227
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 1228
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1229
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1230
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1231
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1232
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 1233
(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 . 1234
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 1235
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 1236
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 1237
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 1238
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 1239
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 1240
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 1241
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 1242
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 1243
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 1244
Definition 5.6 (Characterization of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 1245
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 1246
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 1247
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 1248
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 1249
could be characterized as follow-up items. 1250
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 1251
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 1252
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 1253
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 1254
HyperEdge; 1255
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 1256
SuperEdge; 1257
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 1258
SuperHyperEdge. 1259
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 1260
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 1261
Definition 5.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 1262
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 1263
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 1264
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 1265
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 1266
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 1267
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 1268
Definition 5.8. 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 5.9. 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 5.10. (General Forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 1269
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 1270
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 1271
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 1272
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 1273
1, 2, . . . , n); 1274
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 1275
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 1276
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1277
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1278
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1279
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1280
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 1281
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 1282
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 1283
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 1284
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 1285
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 1286
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 1287
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 1288
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 1289
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 1290
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 1291
Definition 5.11 (Characterization of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 1292
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 1293
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 1294
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 1295
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 1296
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 1298
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 1299
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 1300
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 1301
HyperEdge; 1302
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 1303
SuperEdge; 1304
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 1305
SuperHyperEdge. 1306
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 1307
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 1308
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 1309
Definition 5.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 1310
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 1311
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 1312
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 1313
Definition 5.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 1314
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 1315
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 1316
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 1317
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 1318
given SuperHyperEdges; 1319
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 1320
SuperHyperEdges; 1321
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 1322
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 1323
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 1324
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 1325
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 1326
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 1327
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 1328
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 1329
common SuperVertex. 1330
Definition 5.14. 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 1331
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 1332
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 1333
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1334
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1335
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1336
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1337
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1338
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1339
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1340
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1341
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 1342
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 1343
Definition 5.15. (Characterization of the neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1344
s). 1345
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; 1347
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 1348
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 1349
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 1350
SuperHyperPath . 1351
Definition 5.16. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperCycle). 1352
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 1353
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 1354
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 1355
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges in 1356
the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperEdges and extreme 1357
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the extreme SuperHyperCycle and either 1358
all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all extreme SuperHyperEdges; 1359
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 1360
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 1361
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1362
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 1363
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 1364
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 1365
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 1366
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an 1367
extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 1368
contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number of the maximum 1369
extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges of an extreme 1370
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 1371
SuperHyperEdges and extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 1372
extreme SuperHyperCycle and either all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all 1373
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 1374
coefficient; 1375
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 1376
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 1377
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 1379
SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 1380
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 1381
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 1382
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 1383
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 1384
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme 1385
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an 1386
extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme 1387
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 1388
extreme SuperHyperEdges; 1391
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 1392
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 1393
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1394
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 1395
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 1396
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 1397
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges;; 1398
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 1399
an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 1400
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme 1401
number of the maximum extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1402
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 1403
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 1406
coefficient; 1407
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 1408
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 1409
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 1411
SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 1412
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 1413
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 1414
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 1415
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 1416
Definition 5.17. ((neutrosophic/neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperCycle). 1417
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 1418
(i) an δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 1419
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following expressions hold for the 1420
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1421
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (5.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 1422
Expression (5.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 1423
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 1424
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following neutrosophic expressions hold 1425
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1426
|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 (5.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 1427
And the Expression (5.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 1428
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 1429
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(5.20)
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
(5.19)
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 1430
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 1431
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 1432
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 1433
Definition 5.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 1434
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 1435
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 1436
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 1437
understandable. 1438
Definition 5.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 1439
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 1440
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1441
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 1442
SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic 1443
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 1444
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 1445
(2) holds. 1446
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1447
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1448
more neutrosophicly understandable. 1449
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 1450
the neutrosophic notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. The SuperHyperVertices 1451
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 1452
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 1453
Definition 5.20. Assume a SuperHyperCycle. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 1454
SuperHyperCycle if the Table (3) holds. 1455

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(5.20)
6 Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle But As The 1456
Extensions Except From Eulerian And 1457
Hamiltonian Forms 1458
The extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme SuperHyperCycle, is up. Thus the 1459
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle, S is up. The extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1460
the extreme SuperHyperCycle, is: S is a extreme SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes 1461
only more than four extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1462
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the extreme 1463
type-SuperHyperSet called the 1464
“extreme SuperHyperCycle” 1465
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme type-SuperHyperSets 1466
called the 1467
SuperHyperCycle, 1468
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 1469
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] 1470
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme 1471
SuperHyperCycle amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected neutrosophic 1472
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 1473
featured on the Figures. 1474
Example 6.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), 1475
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22), (23), (24), (25), and (26). 1476
• On the Figure (7), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 1477
SuperHyperCycle, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 1478
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 1479
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic 1480
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 1481
The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means that 1482
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 1483
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given neutrosophic 1484
C(N SHG) = {E2 } is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle.

C(N SHG) = z is an neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 } is a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle.
C(N SHG) = z is a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1486
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1487
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1488
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1489

Is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1490

Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 1493
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1495
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one 1496
neutrosophic consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 1497
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1498
but it has either all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or all neutrosophic 1499
SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. 1500
There’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle such that it has all neutrosophic 1501
SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four neutrosophic 1502
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1503
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple 1504
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is a 1505
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only less than four neutrosophic 1506

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 1509
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1510
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 1511

Isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1513
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1514

Is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 1516
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1517
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one 1518
neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic 1519
SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one 1520
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, but it has either all neutrosophic 1521
SuperHyperEdges or all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has 1522
all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1523
such that it has all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, given by that neutrosophic 1524
type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s a 1525
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since it has 1526
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle but it has either all neutrosophic 1531
all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There are only less than four neutrosophic 1533
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1534

Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 1535

SuperHyperCycle, is: 1537

Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: 1538

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1539
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 1540
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] neutrosophic 1543
type-SuperHyperSets called the 1544

• On the Figure (8), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. 1547
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 isn’t a loop 1548
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1549
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 1550
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 1551
an endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 1552
given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1553
V3 , is excluded in every given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1554











E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 1617
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 1618
namely, E4 . E2 is an isolated SuperHyperEdge. 1619
With the exception of E2 , the concept could be applied. With keeping E2 in the 1620
mind, the story is coming up. 1621

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










• On the Figure (10), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperCycle, is up. 1683
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 1684
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 1685
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 1686
C(N SHG) = {V3 , E1 , V4 , E2 , H, E1 , V3 } is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle.

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










There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 1749
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1750
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1751
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle = {V5 , E1 , V4 , E4 , V5 }.

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










There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 1814
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperCycle = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 22 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperCycle =
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−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 .
SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four neutrosophic 1831
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. The obvious simple 1833

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 .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There aren’t only less than four neutrosophic 1862

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 up. The non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1865
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, is: 1866

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 1868
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 1869
the only neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1870

i=1 ∪ {V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V

{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
• On the Figure (13), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. The 1876
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1877
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 1878
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperCycle =

{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 }
SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four neutrosophic 1897

{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 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1944
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The following 1946
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperCycle = {}

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperCycle = {}
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.






Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 1974
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 1976












In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 2012
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (14). 2013
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 2016
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s 2017
no coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 2018
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 2019
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 2020
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 2021
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 2022
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 2023
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and 2024
Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 2025
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 2026
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 2027
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 2028
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 2029
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 2030
expressions. 2031

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−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
SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t less than only four neutrosophic 2052

{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

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 2097
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (15). 2098
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s no coverage 2103
on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 2104
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 2105
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 2106
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 2107
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 2108
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 2109
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and 2110
Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 2111
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 2112
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 2113
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 2114
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 2115
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 2116
expressions. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 2117

{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 }
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 2131
There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 2132
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 2133
SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 2134
called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2135
includes only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the 2136
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2137

{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 }
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 2151
called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s a neutrosophic 2152
SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 2153
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 2154
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one neutrosophic 2155
consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 2156
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 2157
There are not only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 2158
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2159

{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 }
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called 2168
the 2169

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 2172
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (16). 2173
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 2175

{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: 2221

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is not: 2222

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
the 2228

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s only one 2236
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges between any given neutrosophic amount of 2237
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any neutrosophic 2238
SuperHyperCycle at all. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 2239










the 2291


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperCycle = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2301
SuperHyperCycle. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 2302

{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 }.
the 2352

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {}.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycle = {}.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 0

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








the 2413

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 2416
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 2417
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 2418

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









the 2476

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 2479
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 2480
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected 2481
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 2482
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (21). 2483
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

2490

2491

2492

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
2493

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


2499

2500

2501


2505

2506

2507

2508


2522

2523

2524

2525


2530

2531

2532

2533


2537

2538

2539

2540

There are only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 2553

2555

2556

2557

2558


2560

2561

2562

2563


2566

2567

2568

2569

the 2575

2578

2579

2580

2581


2589

2590

2591

2592


2598

2599

2600

2601


2605

2606

2607

2608


2622

2623

2624

2625


2630

2631

2632

2633


2637

2638

2639

2640

There are only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 2653

2655

2656

2657

2658


2660

2661

2662

2663


2666

2667

2668

2669

the 2675

2678

2679

2680

2681


2689

2690


C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .
2691


2697

2698

2699

2700


2704

2705

2706

2707


2721

2722

2723

2724


2729

2730

2731

2732


2736

2737

2738

2739

erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 2740
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 2741
SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one neutrosophic 2742
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2744
given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 2745
SuperHyperCycle and it’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s 2746
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four neutrosophic 2751

2753

2754

2755

2756


2758

2759

2760

2761


2764

2765

2766

2767

the 2773

2776

2777

2778

2779







SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 2815
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 2816
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2819
given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 2820
SuperHyperCycle and it’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s 2821
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four neutrosophic 2826



the 2836

Proposition 6.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2841
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2842
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperCycleSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least cardinality, the 2843
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperCycle is 2844
the cardinality of 2845

Figure 7. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperCycle in

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)

the Example (6.1)
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2846
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t a 2847
neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle since neither neutrosophic amount of 2848
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor neutrosophic amount of neutrosophic 2849
SuperHyperVertices where neutrosophic amount refers to the neutrosophic number of 2850
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any 2851
neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic consecutive consequence as the neutrosophic icon and 2852
neutrosophic generator of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the terms of the 2853
neutrosophic longest form. Let us consider the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2854

This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the 2855
eligibilities to propose property such that there’s only one neutrosophic consecutive 2856
neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic 2857
SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that 2858
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle but the 2859
maximum neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these neutrosophic 2860
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the neutrosophic lower bound in the term of 2861
neutrosophic sharpness. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2862

Of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up 2863
but sometimes the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2864

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

V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }
Is a neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least

cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the neutrosophic cardinality, of a neutrosophic
neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle is the cardinality of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.

their quasi-types but the neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle is only up in

this neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperCycle. It’s the contradiction to that fact
on the neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic necessity on the neutrosophic 2865
SuperHyperEdge since we need at least three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices to form 2866
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the neutrosophic principles of the 2867
main neutrosophic definition since there’s no neutrosophic condition to be satisfied but 2868
the neutrosophic condition is on the neutrosophic existence of the neutrosophic 2869
SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In other 2870
words, if there are three neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges, then the neutrosophic 2871
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended neutrosophic definition to 2872
be neutrosophicly applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is withdrawn not by the 2873
neutrosophic conditions of the main neutrosophic definition but by the neutrosophic 2874
necessity of the neutrosophic pre-condition on the neutrosophic usage of the main 2875
neutrosophic definition. 2876
To make sense with the precise neutrosophic words in the terms of “R-’, the 2877
follow-up neutrosophic illustrations are neutrosophicly coming up. 2878

V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .

Is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s only one neutrosophic consecutive
neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, instead of
all given by Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is related to the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is
up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only four neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices,
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far four neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2879
R-SuperHyperCycle. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2880

SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 2882
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 2883
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by 2886
that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 2887
it’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s 2888
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one 2890
neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2891
and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 2892
There are not only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 2893
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2894



SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple 2899


it’s a neutrosophic girth embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2906
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2907

Is a neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperCycle. In other words, the least cardinality, 2908
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a neutrosophic 2909
type-result-SuperHyperCycle is the cardinality of 2910

2911
Proposition 6.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the neutrosophic number of type-result-R-SuperHyperCycle has, the least
neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for neutrosophic
cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperCycle with the least neutrosophic 2912
cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 2913
Proof. The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperCycle

decorates the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any neutrosophic
connections so as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to
have the maximum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
perfect neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from
the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in
the targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection.

are coming up. 2920




SuperHyperVertices,

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

is only and only

are
To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the neutrosophic number of R-SuperHyperCycle has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperCycle with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 2929
cardinality. 2930
Proposition 6.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperCycle is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 2933
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 2934
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in some 2936
cases but the maximum number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 2937
neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the neutrosophic 2938
SuperHyperVertices are contained in a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle. 2939
Proof. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic

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

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
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
2941

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
are coming up. 2952



SuperHyperVertices,


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

is only and only


are


of
To sum them up, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperCycle is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a neutrosophic 2969
R-SuperHyperCycle. 2970
Proposition 6.5. Assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2971
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 2972
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2973
inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle minus all neutrosophic 2974
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 2975
unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 2976
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, minus 2977
all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 2978
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 2979
are coming up. 3027



SuperHyperVertices,

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


is only and only

are


of
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3036
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 3037
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3038
inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle minus all neutrosophic 3039
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 3040
an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 3041
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle, minus 3042
all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 3043
Proposition 6.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 3044
quasi-R-SuperHyperCycle if for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic 3046
SuperHyperVertex, some interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 3047
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all minus all 3048
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 3049
Proof. The main definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle has two titles. a 3050


[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

And then, 3075



3077

3078

3079

up. 3096

3097
3098
3099


3101

3102

3103

are coming up. 3111




SuperHyperVertices,

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

is only and only

are


of
Any neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle only contains all interior neutrosophic 3127
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 3128
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 3129
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 3134
are coming up. 3179




SuperHyperVertices,

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


is only and only

are


of
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3188
ESHG : (V, E). Any neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle only contains all interior 3189
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3190
from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all 3191
possible neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic 3192
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all neutrosophic 3193
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 3194
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 3195
out. 3196
Remark 6.8. The words “ neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” and “neutrosophic 3197
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum neutrosophic type-style. In other 3198
words, they refer to the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber and the 3199
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. 3200
Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 3202
has the members poses only one neutrosophic representative in a neutrosophic 3203
quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 3204
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a 3205
neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (6.7), the 3206
neutrosophic results are up. Thus on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3207
ESHG : (V, E). Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic 3208
SuperHyperCycle has the members poses only one neutrosophic representative in a 3209
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 3210
7 Background 3211
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 3212
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3213
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3214
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 3215
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 3216
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 3217
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 3218
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 3219
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 3220
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 3221
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 3222
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 3223
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 3224
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 3225
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 3226
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 3227
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3228
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 3229
majority of notions. 3230
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3231
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3232
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3233
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3234
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3235
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3236
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3237
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 3238
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 3239
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 3240
based on initial background. 3241
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3242
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3243
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3244
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3245
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3246
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3247
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3248
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 3249
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3250
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3251
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3252
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3253
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3254
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3255
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3256
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3257
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3258
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3259
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3260
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3261
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 3262
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3263
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3264
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3265
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3266
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3267
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 3268
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3269
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3270
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3271
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3272
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3273
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3274
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3275
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3276
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3277
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 3278
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3279
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3280
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 3281
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 3282
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3283
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 3284
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3285
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3286
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3287
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 3288
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3289
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3290
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3291
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3292
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3293
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3294
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3295
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3296
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 3297
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3298
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 3299
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3300
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3301
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3302
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3303
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 3304
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3305
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 3306
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3307
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 3308
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 3309
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3310
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3311
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 3312
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 3313
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 3314
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 3315
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3316
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3317
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 3318
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3319
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 3320
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 3321
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3322
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 3323
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3324
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3325
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3326
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3327
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 3328
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 3329
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3330
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 3331
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 3332
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 3333
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 3334
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3335
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3336
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 3337
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 3338
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 3339
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 3340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 3341
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 3342
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 3343
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 3344
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 3345
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 3346
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 3347
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 3348
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 3349
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 3350
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 3351
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 3352
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 3353
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 3354
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3355
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3356
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3357
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3358
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3359
See the seminal researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the framework 3360
of Extreme SuperHyperCycle theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle theory, and 3361
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular research books in 3362
Scribd in the terms of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science 3363
is on [39, 40]. 3364
References 3365
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3366
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 3367
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 3368
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 3369
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 3370
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3371
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3372
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3373
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3374
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3375
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3376
(2022) 242-263. 3377
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3378
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3379
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3380
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3381
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3382
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3383
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3384
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3385
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3386
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3387
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3388
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3389
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3390
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3391
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3392
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3393
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3394
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3395
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3396
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3397
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3398
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3399
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3400
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3401
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3402
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3403
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3404
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3405
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3406
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3407
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3408
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3409
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3410
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3411
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3412
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3413
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3414
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3415
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3416
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3417
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3418
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3419
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3420
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3421
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3422
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3423
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3424
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3425
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3426
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3427
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3428
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3429
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3430
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3431
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3432
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 3433
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3434
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3436
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3437
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3438
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3439
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3440
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3441
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3442
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3443
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3444
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3445
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3446
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3447
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3448
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3449
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3450
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3451
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3452
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3453
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3454
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3455
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3456
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3457
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3458
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3459
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3460
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3461
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3462
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3463
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 3464
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3465
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3466
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3467
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3468
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3469
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3470
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3471
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3472
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3473
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3474
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3476
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3477
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3478
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 3479
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3480
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3481
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3482
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3483
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3484
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3485
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3488
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3489
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3490
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3491
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3492
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3493
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3494
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3495
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3496
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3497
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3498
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3499
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3500
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3501
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3502
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3503
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3504
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3505
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3506
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3507
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3508
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3509
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3510
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3511
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3512
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3513
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3514
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3515
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3516
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3517
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3518
View publication stats

A Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As Hyper Covering Versus Super Separations-I

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

A Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As Hyper Covering Versus Super Separations-I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

A Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · February 2023

284 PUBLICATIONS 2,852 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and 3

Hamiltonian Sets As Hyper Covering Versus Super 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 7

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 8

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

SuperHyperCycle and neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle . Two different types of 11

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13

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

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16

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

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

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

to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 28

and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a neutrosophic 30

SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 31

the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 32

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

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 34

SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 35

the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36

neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 37

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 38

no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 39

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial 40

C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 41

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum 42

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s 43

no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to 44

have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its 45

coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a 46

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 47

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 48

neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 49

SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such 50

that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic 51

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic 52

SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is 53

neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; a neutrosophic 54

R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 55

the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices 56

such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 57

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 58

R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 59

the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60

neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 61

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 62

no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 63

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle 64

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 65

N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients 66

defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high 67

cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 68

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 69

SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 70

R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 71