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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368291252
A Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

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

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
286 PUBLICATIONS 2,872 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures 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-III 5
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 7
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 8
ABSTRACT 9
In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then some notions on Extreme 10
SuperHyperCycle based on the backgrounds of Eulerian and Hamiltonian styles are 11
proposed. Some results are directed in the way that, the starting definitions make sense 12
on the motivation and the continuous approaches for this research. A basic familiarity 13
with neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and neutrosophic 14
SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 15
Keywords: neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (neutrosophic) SuperHyperCycle, 16
Cancer’s neutrosophic Recognition 17
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 18
1 Wondering open Problems But As The Directions 19
To Forming The Motivations 20
In what follows, some “Neutrosophic problems” and some “Neutrosophic questions” are 21
Neutrosophicly proposed. 22
The SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle are Neutrosophicly 23
defined on a real-world Neutrosophic application, titled “Cancer’s neutrosophic 24
recognitions”. 25
Question 1.1. Which the else neutrosophic SuperHyperModels could be defined based 26
on Cancer’s neutrosophic recognitions? 27
Question 1.2. Are there some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions related to 28
SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle? 29
Question 1.3. Are there some Neutrosophic Algorithms to be defined on the 30
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels to compute them Neutrosophicly? 31
Question 1.4. Which the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 32
SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle? 33
Problem 1.5. The SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle do 34
Neutrosophicly a neutrosophic SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s neutrosophic 35
recognitions and they’re based Neutrosophicly on neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, are 36
there else Neutrosophicly? 37
Problem 1.6. Which the fundamental Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers are related to 38
these Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 39
Problem 1.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s neutrosophic 40
recognitions concerning the multiple types of neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions? 41
2 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 42
Results But As The Initial Motivation 43
For the SuperHyperCycle, extreme SuperHyperCycle, and the neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperCycle, some general results are introduced. 45
Remark 2.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is “redefined” on the 46
positions of the alphabets. 47
Corollary 2.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperCycle. Then 48
N eutrosophic SuperHyperCycle =
{theSuperHyperCycleof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperCycle. }
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 49
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 50
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 51
Corollary 2.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 52
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and SuperHyperCycle 53
coincide. 54
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 56
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a SuperHyperCycle. 57
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 59
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 60
Corollary 2.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 61
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is its 62
SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 63
Corollary 2.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 64
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 65
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is its 66
SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 67
Corollary 2.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 68
SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined. 69
Corollary 2.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 70
its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 71
isn’t well-defined. 72
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 74
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its 75
SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined. 76
Corollary 2.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 77
SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle is well-defined. 78
Corollary 2.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 79
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 80
is well-defined. 81
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 83
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 84
is well-defined. 85
Proposition 2.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 86
is 87
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 88
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 89
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 90
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 91
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 92
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 93
Proposition 2.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 94
∅ is 95
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 96
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 97
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 98
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 99
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 100
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 101
Proposition 2.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 102
independent SuperHyperSet is 103
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 104
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 105
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 106
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 107
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 108
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 109
Proposition 2.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 110
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 111
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 112
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 113
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 114
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 115
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 116
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 117
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 118
Proposition 2.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 119
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 120
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 121
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 122
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 123
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 124
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 125
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 126
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 127
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 129
(i) : the SuperHyperCycle; 130
(ii) : the SuperHyperCycle; 131
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperCycle; 132
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 133
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 134
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle. 135
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 136
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 137
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 139
(i) : the dual SuperHyperCycle; 140
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperCycle; 141
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperCycle; 142
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 143
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle; 144
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperCycle. 145
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 146
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 149
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 150
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 151
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 152
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 156
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 157
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 158
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 161
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 162
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 163
is a 164
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 168
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 169
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 170
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 173
number of 174
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 178
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 179
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 180
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 181
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 182
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 183
Proposition 2.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 185
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 186
(iv) : SuperHyperCycle; 190
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 191
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 192
Proposition 2.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 193
number is at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 194
Proposition 2.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 195
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 196
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 197
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 201
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 203
Proposition 2.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 204
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in 205
the setting of dual 206
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 210
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 211
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 212
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 214
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 216
and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 217
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 221
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 222
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 223
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 225
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 226
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 227
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 233
Proposition 2.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 234
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 235
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 236
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 237
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 238
Proposition 2.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 239
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 240
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 241
(ii) vx ∈ E. 242
Proposition 2.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 243
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then 244
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 245
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 246
Proposition 2.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 247
Then 248
(i) Γ ≤ O; 249
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 250
Proposition 2.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 251
which is connected. Then 252
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 253
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 254
Proposition 2.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 255
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 256
SuperHyperCycle; 257
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 258
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 259
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 260
a dual SuperHyperCycle. 261
Proposition 2.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 262
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 263
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 264
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 265
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 266
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 267
dual SuperHyperCycle. 268
Proposition 2.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 269
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 270
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 272
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 273
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 274
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 275
Proposition 2.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 277
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 278
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 280
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 281
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 282
Proposition 2.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 284
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle; 285
(ii) Γ = 1; 286
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 287
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperCycle. 288
Proposition 2.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 289
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 290
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 291
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 292
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 293
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 294
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 295
Proposition 2.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 296
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 297
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 299
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 300
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 301
SuperHyperCycle. 302
Proposition 2.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 303
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 304
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 305

bnc ; 306
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 307
Proposition 2.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 309
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 310
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 311
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 312
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 313
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 314
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 315
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). 316
Proposition 2.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 317
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 318
SuperHyperSet. Then 319
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 320
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 321
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 322

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 323
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 324
N SHF : (V, E). 325
Proposition 2.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 326
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 327
SuperHyperSet. Then 328
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle 329
for N SHF : (V, E); 330
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 331

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 332
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 333
N SHF : (V, E). 334
Then following statements hold; 336
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 337
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 338
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 340
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 341
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 345
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 346
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 348
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 349
Proposition 2.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 351
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 352
statements hold; 353
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 354
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 355
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 356
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 358
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 360
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 361
Proposition 2.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 362
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 363
statements hold; 364
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 365
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 367
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 369
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 371
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 372
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 374
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 375
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 376
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 378
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 380
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 383
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 385
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 386
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 387
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 389
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 391
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 392
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 394
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 396
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 398
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 400
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 402
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 405
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 407
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 409
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 411
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 413
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 416
3 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 417
Motivation Of This Research 418
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 419
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. 420
Question 3.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 421
find the “ amount of SuperHyperCycle” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells 422
based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 423
SuperHyperCycle” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 424
Question 3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 425
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 426
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 427
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 428
SuperHyperCycle” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 429
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. 430
4 Preliminaries Of This Research On the Redeemed 431
Ways 432
In this section, the basic material in this research, is referred to [Single Valued 433
neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 434
2.1,p.1), [neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 435
[Characterization of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 436
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 437
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). Also, the new 438
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [38]. 439
Definition 4.1. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperCycle). 440
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 441
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 442
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 443
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges in 444
the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperEdges and extreme 445
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the extreme SuperHyperCycle and either 446
all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all extreme SuperHyperEdges; 447
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 448
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 449
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 450
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 451
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 452
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 453
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 454
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an 455
extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 456
contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number of the maximum 457
extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges of an extreme 458
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 459
SuperHyperEdges and extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 460
extreme SuperHyperCycle and either all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all 461
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 462
coefficient; 463
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 464
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 465
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 466
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 467
SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 468
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 469
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 470
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 471
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 472
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme 473
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an 474
extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme 475
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 476
extreme SuperHyperEdges; 479
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 480
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 481
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 482
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 483
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 484
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 485
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges;; 486
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 487
an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 488
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme 489
number of the maximum extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 490
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 491
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 494
coefficient; 495
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.5)
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
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 496
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 497
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 498
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 499
SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 500
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 501
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 502
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 503
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 504
Definition 4.2. ((neutrosophic/neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperCycle). 505
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 506
(i) an δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 507
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following expressions hold for the 508
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 509
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 510
Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 511
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 512
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following neutrosophic expressions hold 513
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 514
|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 (4.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 515
And the Expression (4.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 516
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 517
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 518
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 519
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 520
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 521
Definition 4.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 522
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 523
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 524
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 525
understandable. 526

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(4.4)

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.5)
Definition 4.4. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 527
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 528
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 529
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 530
SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic 531
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 532
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 533
(2) holds. 534
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 535
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 536
more neutrosophicly understandable. 537
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 538
the neutrosophic notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. The SuperHyperVertices 539
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 540
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 541
Definition 4.5. Assume a SuperHyperCycle. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 542
SuperHyperCycle if the Table (3) holds. 543
5 Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle But As The 544
Extensions Except From Eulerian And 545
Hamiltonian Forms 546
The extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme SuperHyperCycle, is up. Thus the 547
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle, S is up. The extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 548
the extreme SuperHyperCycle, is: S is a extreme SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes 549
only more than four extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 550
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the extreme 551
type-SuperHyperSet called the 552
“extreme SuperHyperCycle” 553
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme type-SuperHyperSets 554
called the 555
SuperHyperCycle, 556
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 557
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] 558
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme 559
SuperHyperCycle amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected neutrosophic 560
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 561
featured on the Figures. 562
Example 5.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 563
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 564
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 565
SuperHyperCycle, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 566
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 567
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic 568
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 569
The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means that 570
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 571
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given neutrosophic 572
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 574
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 575
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 576
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 577

Is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 578
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 579
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 580

Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 581
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 582
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 583
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one 584
neutrosophic consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 585
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 586
but it has either all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or all neutrosophic 587
SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. 588
There’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle such that it has all neutrosophic 589
SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four neutrosophic 590
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 591
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple 592
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is a 593
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only less than four neutrosophic 594
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 595

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 597
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 598
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 599
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 600

Isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 601
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 602

Is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 604
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 605
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one 606
neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic 607
SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one 608
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, but it has either all neutrosophic 609
SuperHyperEdges or all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has 610
all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 611
such that it has all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, given by that neutrosophic 612
type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s a 613
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since it has 614
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle but it has either all neutrosophic 619
all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There are only less than four neutrosophic 621
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 622

Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 623

Is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 624
SuperHyperCycle, is: 625

Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: 626

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 627
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 628
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 629
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” 630
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] neutrosophic 631
type-SuperHyperSets called the 632
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 633
is only and only 634

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. 635
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 isn’t a loop 636
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 637
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 638
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 639
an endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 640
given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 641
V3 , is excluded in every given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 642











E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 705
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 706
namely, E4 . E2 is an isolated SuperHyperEdge. 707
With the exception of E2 , the concept could be applied. With keeping E2 in the 708
mind, the story is coming up. 709

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










• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperCycle, is up. 771
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 772
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 773
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 774
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 837
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 838
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 839
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. 902
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 919
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. The obvious simple 921

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

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 930
SuperHyperCycle. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 931

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 950

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 952

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 953
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, is: 954

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 956
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 957
the only neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 958

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

{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. The 964
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 965
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 966
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The neutrosophic 967
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 968
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 985

{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 1032
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The following 1034
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 1062
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 1064












In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1100
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1101
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1104
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s 1105
no coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 1106
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 1107
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 1108
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 1109
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 1110
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 1111
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and 1112
Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 1113
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 1114
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 1115
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 1116
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 1117
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1118
expressions. 1119

{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 1140

{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 1185
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1186
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s no coverage 1191
on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 1192
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 1193
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 1194
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 1195
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 1196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 1197
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and 1198
Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 1199
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 1200
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 1201
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 1202
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 1203
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1204
expressions. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1205

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

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

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 1214
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1219
There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1220
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1221
SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1222
called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1223
includes only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the 1224
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1225

{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 1239
called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s a neutrosophic 1240
SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 1241
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1242
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one neutrosophic 1243
consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 1244
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1245
There are not only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 1246
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1247

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

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


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


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

simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1254
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called 1256
the 1257

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1260
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1261
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 1263

{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: 1309

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is not: 1310

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
the 1316

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1319
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s only one 1324
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges between any given neutrosophic amount of 1325
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any neutrosophic 1326
SuperHyperCycle at all. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1327










the 1379


{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 1389
SuperHyperCycle. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1390

{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 1440

{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 1501

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1504
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 1505
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 1506

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









the 1564

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1567
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 1568
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected 1569
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 1570
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1571
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

1578

1579

1580

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
1581

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

1587

1588

1589

1590


1594

1595

1596

1597


1611

1612

1613

1614


1619

1620

1621

1622


1626

1627

1628

1629

There are only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 1642

1644

1645

1646

1647


1649

1650

1651

1652


1655

1656

1657

1658

the 1664

1667

1668

1669

1670

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

the Example (5.1)
Algorithm is straightforward. 1673
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1678
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 1679
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 1680
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperCycle is 1681
the cardinality of 1682
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 .
Proposition 5.3. 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
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperCycle with the least neutrosophic 1683
cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 1684

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)

the Example (5.1)
6 The Departures on The Theoretical Results 1685
Toward Theoretical Motivations 1686
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on 1687
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1688
Proposition 6.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1689
Then 1690
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. Let P : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a longest path taken from a connected 1691
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then there’s no cycle. Thus the notion 1692
of quasi is up. The latter is straightforward. 1693
Example 6.2. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1694
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1695
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperCycle. 1696
Proposition 6.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1697
Figure 21. a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

SuperHyperCycle in the Example (6.2)
Then 1698

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Proof. Let C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a longest cycle taken from a connected 1699
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Then there’s at least one cycle. Thus 1700
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperCycle 1701
could be applied. The latter is straightforward. 1702
Example 6.4. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1703
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1704
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1705
Proposition 6.5. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1706
Then 1707

= {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 +, . . . .
Figure 22. a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (6.4)
Proof. Let P : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a longest path taken from a connected 1708
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then there’s no cycle. Thus the notion of 1709
quasi is up. The latter is straightforward. 1710
Example 6.6. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1711
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1712
by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic 1713
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1714
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1715
Proposition 6.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1716
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1717

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 .
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Then there’s at least one cycle. 1719
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1720
SuperHyperCycle could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every 1721
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1722
C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a longest cycle taken from a connected neutrosophic 1723
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only four SuperHyperVertices and only four 1724
SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz . The latter is 1725
straightforward. 1726
Figure 23. a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (6.6)
Example 6.8. In the neutrosophic Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic 1727
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic 1728
featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 1729
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1730
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 1731
SuperHyperModel (24), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1732
Proposition 6.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1733
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1734

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 .
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). Then there’s at least one cycle. 1736
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1737
SuperHyperCycle could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every 1738
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1739
C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1740
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only z 0 SuperHyperVertices and only z 0 SuperHyperEdges are 1741
attained in any solution C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz . The latter is straightforward. 1742
Example 6.10. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic 1743
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The 1744
Figure 24. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-

sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the Example (6.8)
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, 1745
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic 1746
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is 1747
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1748
Proposition 6.11. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1749
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1750

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then there’s at least one cycle. Thus 1752
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperCycle 1753
could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperCycle proposes some longest cycles 1754
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1755
Example 6.12. In the neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic 1756
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1757
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1758
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1759
ESHW : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (26), is the neutrosophic 1760
Figure 25. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the Example (6.10)
Figure 26. a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-

sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (6.12)
7 Background 1762
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 1763
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 1764
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 1765
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 1766
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 1767
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 1768
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 1769
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 1770
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 1771
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 1772
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 1773
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 1774
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 1775
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 1776
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 1777
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 1778
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1779
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 1780
majority of notions. 1781
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 1782
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 1783
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 1784
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 1785
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 1786
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 1787
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 1788
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 1789
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 1790
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 1791
based on initial background. 1792
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 1793
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 1794
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 1795
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 1796
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 1797
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 1798
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 1799
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 1800
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 1801
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 1802
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 1803
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 1804
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1805
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1806
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 1807
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 1808
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 1809
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 1810
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 1811
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 1812
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 1813
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 1814
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 1815
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 1816
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 1817
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 1818
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 1819
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 1820
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 1821
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 1822
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1823
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 1824
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 1825
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1826
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 1827
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 1828
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 1829
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1830
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 1831
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 1832
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 1833
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 1834
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 1835
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 1836
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1837
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 1838
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 1839
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 1840
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 1841
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 1842
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1843
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 1844
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 1845
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 1846
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 1847
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 1848
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1849
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 1850
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1851
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 1852
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 1853
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 1854
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 1855
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 1856
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 1857
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 1858
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 1859
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 1860
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1861
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1862
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 1863
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 1864
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 1865
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 1866
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1867
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 1868
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 1869
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1870
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 1871
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 1872
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1873
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 1874
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1875
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 1876
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 1877
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1878
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 1879
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 1880
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 1881
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 1882
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 1883
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 1884
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 1885
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1886
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 1887
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 1888
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 1889
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 1890
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 1891
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 1892
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 1893
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 1894
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 1895
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 1896
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 1897
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 1898
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 1899
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 1900
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 1901
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 1902
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 1903
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 1904
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 1905
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 1906
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 1907
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 1908
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 1909
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 1910
See the seminal researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the framework 1911
of Extreme SuperHyperCycle theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle theory, and 1912
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular research books in 1913
Scribd in the terms of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science 1914
is on [39, 40]. 1915
References 1916
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1917
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1918
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1919
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1920
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1921
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 1922
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 1923
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1924
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1925
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 1926
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 1927
(2022) 242-263. 1928
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1929
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1930
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1931
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1932
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1933
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1934
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 1935
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 1936
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1937
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1938
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1939
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 1940
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 1941
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 1942
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 1943
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 1944
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 1945
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 1946
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 1947
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 1948
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1949
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 1950
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 1951
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 1952
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 1953
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 1954
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 1955
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 1956
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 1957
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 1958
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 1959
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 1960
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 1961
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 1962
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 1963
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 1964
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 1965
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1966
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 1967
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 1968
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1969
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1970
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1971
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 1972
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1973
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1974
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1975
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1976
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1977
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1978
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1979
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1980
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1981
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1982
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1983
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1984
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1987
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1988
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1989
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1990
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 1991
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1992
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 1993
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 1994
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1995
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 1996
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1997
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1998
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1999
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 2000
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 2001
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 2002
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 2003
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 2004
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 2005
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 2006
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 2007
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 2008
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 2009
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 2010
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 2011
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 2012
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 2013
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 2014
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 2015
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 2016
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 2017
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2018
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 2019
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 2020
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 2021
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 2022
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 2023
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 2024
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 2025
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 2027
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 2028
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 2029
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 2030
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 2031
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 2032
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 2033
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 2034
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 2035
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 2036
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 2039
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 2040
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 2041
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2042
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 2043
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2044
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 2045
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2046
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 2047
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2048
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2049
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 2050
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2051
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2052
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2053
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 2054
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 2055
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2056
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 2057
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 2058
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 2059
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 2060
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 2061
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 2062
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 2063
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 2064
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 2065
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 2066
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 2067
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 2068
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 2069
View publication stats

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

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-III

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

286 PUBLICATIONS 2,872 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures 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, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then some notions on Extreme 10

SuperHyperCycle based on the backgrounds of Eulerian and Hamiltonian styles are 11

with neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and neutrosophic 14

SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 15

Keywords: neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (neutrosophic) SuperHyperCycle, 16

Cancer’s neutrosophic Recognition 17

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 18

1 Wondering open Problems But As The Directions 19

To Forming The Motivations 20

The SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle are Neutrosophicly 23

defined on a real-world Neutrosophic application, titled “Cancer’s neutrosophic 24

on Cancer’s neutrosophic recognitions? 27

Question 1.2. Are there some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions related to 28

SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle? 29

Question 1.3. Are there some Neutrosophic Algorithms to be defined on the 30

neutrosophic SuperHyperModels to compute them Neutrosophicly? 31

SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle? 33

Problem 1.5. The SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle do 34

Neutrosophicly a neutrosophic SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s neutrosophic 35

recognitions and they’re based Neutrosophicly on neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, are 36

there else Neutrosophicly? 37

Problem 1.6. Which the fundamental Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers are related to 38

these Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 39

Problem 1.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s neutrosophic 40

recognitions concerning the multiple types of neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions? 41

2 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 42

Results But As The Initial Motivation 43

For the SuperHyperCycle, extreme SuperHyperCycle, and the neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperCycle, some general results are introduced. 45

positions of the alphabets. 47

Corollary 2.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperCycle. Then 48

SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 50

indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 51

Corollary 2.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 52

of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and SuperHyperCycle 53

Corollary 2.4. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 55

of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 56

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a SuperHyperCycle. 57

Corollary 2.5. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 58

of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 59

SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 60

Corollary 2.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 61

SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 63

Corollary 2.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 64

SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 65

SuperHyperCycle and reversely. 67

Corollary 2.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 68

SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined. 69

Corollary 2.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 70

its neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperCycle 71

Corollary 2.10. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 73