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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368291452
New Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

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

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
287 PUBLICATIONS 2,883 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
New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and 3
Hamiltonian Sets As Hyper Covering Versus Super 4
separations-IV 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
Proposition 2.1. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 44
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 45
SuperHyperCycle; 46
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 47
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 48
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 49
a dual SuperHyperCycle. 50
Proposition 2.2. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 51
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 52
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 53
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 54
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 55
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 56
dual SuperHyperCycle. 57
Proposition 2.3. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 58
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 59
SuperHyperCycle; 60
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 61
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 62
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 63
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 64
Proposition 2.4. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 66
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 67
SuperHyperCycle; 68
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 69
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 70
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 71
Proposition 2.5. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 73
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle; 74
(ii) Γ = 1; 75
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 76
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperCycle. 77
Proposition 2.6. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 78
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 79
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 80
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 81
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 82
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 83
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 84
Proposition 2.7. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 85
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 86
SuperHyperCycle; 87
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 88
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 89
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 90
SuperHyperCycle. 91
Proposition 2.8. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 92
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 93
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 94

bnc ; 95
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 96
SuperHyperCycle. 97
Proposition 2.9. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 98
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 99
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 100
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 101
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 102
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 103
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 104
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF : (V, E). 105
Proposition 2.10. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 106
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 107
SuperHyperSet. Then 108
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 109
SuperHyperCycle for N SHF; 110
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 111

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 112
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 113
N SHF : (V, E). 114
Proposition 2.11. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 115
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 116
SuperHyperSet. Then 117
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle 118
for N SHF : (V, E); 119
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 120

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 121
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperCycle for 122
N SHF : (V, E). 123
Proposition 2.12. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 124
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 125
statements hold; 126
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 127
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 128
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 129
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 131
SuperHyperCycle; 132
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 133
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 134
Proposition 2.13. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 135
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 136
statements hold; 137
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 138
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 140
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 142
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 144
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 145
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 147
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 148
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 149
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 151
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 153
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 156
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 158
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 159
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 160
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 162
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 164
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 165
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 167
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 169
Then following statements hold; 170
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 171
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 173
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 175
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 178
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 180
Then following statements hold; 181
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 182
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 184
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 186
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 189
3 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 190
Motivation Of This Research 191
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 192
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. 193
Question 3.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 194
find the “ amount of SuperHyperCycle” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells 195
based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 196
SuperHyperCycle” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 197
Question 3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 198
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 199
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 200
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 201
SuperHyperCycle” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 202
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. 203
4 Preliminaries Of This Research On the Redeemed 204
Ways 205
5 Preliminaries 206
In this section, the basic material in this research, is referred to [Single Valued 207
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 208
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 209
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 210
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 211
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 212
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 213
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 214
(Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 215
to Ref. [38]. 216
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. 217
Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 218
Definition 5.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 219
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 220
+
]− 0, 1 [. 221
Definition 5.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 222
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 223
2.5,p.2). 224
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 225
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 226
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 227
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 228
1, 2, . . . , n); 229
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 230
V; 231
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 232
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 233
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 234
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 235
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 236
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 237
(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 . 238
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 239
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 240
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 241
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 242
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 243
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 244
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 245
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 246
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 247
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 248
Definition 5.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 249
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 250
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 251
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 252
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 253
could be characterized as follow-up items. 254
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 255
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 256
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 257
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 258
HyperEdge; 259
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 260
SuperEdge; 261
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 262
SuperHyperEdge. 263
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 264
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 265
Definition 5.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 266
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 267
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 268
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 269
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 270
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 271
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 272
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)). 273
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 274
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 275
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 276
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 277
1, 2, . . . , n); 278
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 279
V; 280
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 281
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 282
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 283
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 284
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 285
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 286
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 287
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 288
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 289
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 290
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 291
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 292
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 293
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 294
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 295
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 296
Definition 5.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 297
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 300
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 301
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 303
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 304
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 305
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 306
HyperEdge; 307
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 308
SuperEdge; 309
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 310
SuperHyperEdge. 311
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 312
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 313
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 314
Definition 5.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 315
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 316
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 317
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 318
Definition 5.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 319
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 320
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 321
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 322
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 323
given SuperHyperEdges; 324
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 325
SuperHyperEdges; 326
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 327
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 328
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 329
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 330
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 331
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 332
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 333
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 334
common SuperVertex. 335
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 336
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 337
(NSHV) Vs if either of following conditions hold: 338
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 339
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 340
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 341
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 342
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 343
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 344
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 345
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 346
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 347
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 348
Definition 5.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 349
SuperHyperPaths). 350
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; 352
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 353
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 354
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 355
SuperHyperPath . 356
Definition 5.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 357
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

A 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 ,
have 359
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 360
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 361
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 362
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 363
Definition 5.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 364
(NSHE)). (Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). 365
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 367
called 368
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 369
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 370
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 371
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 372
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 373
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 375
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 376
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 378
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 379
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 380
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 381
Definition 5.18. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperCycle). 382
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 383
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 384
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 385
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges in 386
the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme SuperHyperEdges and extreme 387
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the extreme SuperHyperCycle and either 388
all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all extreme SuperHyperEdges; 389
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 390
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 391
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 392
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 393
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 394
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 395
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 396
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an 397
extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 398
contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme number of the maximum 399
extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperEdges of an extreme 400
SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 401
SuperHyperEdges and extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 402
extreme SuperHyperCycle and either all extreme SuperHyperVertices or all 403
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 404
coefficient; 405
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 406
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 407
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 408
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 409
SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 410
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 412
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 413
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 414
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for an extreme 415
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum extreme cardinality of an 416
extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality of the extreme 417
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive extreme sequence of extreme 418
extreme SuperHyperEdges; 421
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCycle C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 423
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 424
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 425
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 426
SuperHyperCycle and either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all 427
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges;; 428
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 429
an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 430
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the extreme coefficients defined as the extreme 431
number of the maximum extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 432
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of high extreme cardinality consecutive extreme 433
extreme SuperHyperEdges; and the extreme power is corresponded to its extreme 436
coefficient; 437
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 438
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 439
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 440
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 441
SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 442
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 443
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 444
either all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices or all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges; 445
and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 446
Definition 5.19. ((neutrosophic/neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperCycle). 447
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 448
(i) an δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 449
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following expressions hold for the 450
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 451
|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 452
Expression (5.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 453
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 454
SuperHyperCycle such that either of the following neutrosophic expressions hold 455
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 456
|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. 457
And the Expression (5.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 458
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 459
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 460
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 461
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 462
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 463
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(5.22)
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
(5.21)
Definition 5.20. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 464
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 465
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 466
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 467
understandable. 468
Definition 5.21. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 469
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 470
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 471
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 472
SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic 473
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 474
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 475
(2) holds. 476
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 477
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 478
more neutrosophicly understandable. 479
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, there’s a need to “redefine” 480
the neutrosophic notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. The SuperHyperVertices 481
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 482
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 483
Definition 5.22. Assume a SuperHyperCycle. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 484
SuperHyperCycle if the Table (3) holds. 485
6 Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle But As The 486
Extensions Except From Eulerian And 487
Hamiltonian Forms 488
The extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme SuperHyperCycle, is up. Thus the 489
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperCycle, S is up. The extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 490
the extreme SuperHyperCycle, is: S is a extreme SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes 491

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(5.22)
only more than four extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 492
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the extreme 493
type-SuperHyperSet called the 494
“extreme SuperHyperCycle” 495
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme type-SuperHyperSets 496
called the 497
SuperHyperCycle, 498
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 499
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] 500
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] extreme 501
SuperHyperCycle amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected neutrosophic 502
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 503
featured on the Figures. 504
Example 6.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 505
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 506
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 507
SuperHyperCycle, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 508
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 509
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic 510
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 511
The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means that 512
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 513
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given neutrosophic 514
SuperHyperCycle. 515
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 516
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 517
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 518
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 519

Is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 520
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 521
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 522

Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 523
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 524
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 525
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one 526
neutrosophic consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 527
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 528
but it has either all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or all neutrosophic 529
SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. 530
There’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle such that it has all neutrosophic 531
SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four neutrosophic 532
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 533
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple 534
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is a 535
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only less than four neutrosophic 536
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 537

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 539
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 540
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 541
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 542

Isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 543
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 544

Is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 546
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 547
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one 548
neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic 549
SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one 550
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, but it has either all neutrosophic 551
SuperHyperEdges or all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has 552
all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 553
such that it has all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, given by that neutrosophic 554
type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s a 555
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Since it has 556
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle but it has either all neutrosophic 561
all neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There are only less than four neutrosophic 563
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 564

Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 565

Is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 566
SuperHyperCycle, is: 567

Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: 568

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 569
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 570
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 571
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle” 572
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] neutrosophic 573
type-SuperHyperSets called the 574
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 575
is only and only 576

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperCycle, is up. 577
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 isn’t a loop 578
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 579
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 580
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 581
an endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 582
given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 583
V3 , is excluded in every given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 584











E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 647
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 648
namely, E4 . E2 is an isolated SuperHyperEdge. 649
With the exception of E2 , the concept could be applied. With keeping E2 in the 650
mind, the story is coming up. 651

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










• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperCycle, is up. 713
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 714
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 715
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 716
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 779
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 780
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 781
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. 844
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 861
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. The obvious simple 863

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 872
SuperHyperCycle. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 873

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 892

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, 894

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 895
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, is: 896

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 898
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 899
the only neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 900

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 906
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 907
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 908
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The neutrosophic 909
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 910
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 927

{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 974
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. The following 976
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 1004
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 1006












In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1042
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1043
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1046
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s 1047
no coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 1048
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 1049
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 1050
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 1051
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 1052
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 1053
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and 1054
Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 1055
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 1056
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 1057
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 1058
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 1059
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1060
expressions. 1061

{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 1082

{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 1127
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1128
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s no coverage 1133
on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 1134
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 1135
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 1136
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 1137
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 1138
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperCycle 1139
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle, and 1140
Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperCycle SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 1141
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 1142
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 1143
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 1144
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 1145
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1146
expressions. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1147

{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 1156
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1161
There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1162
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1163
SuperHyperCycle isn’t up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1164
called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1165
includes only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the 1166
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1167

{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 1181
called the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and it’s a neutrosophic 1182
SuperHyperCycle. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 1183
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1184
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one neutrosophic 1185
consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 1186
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1187
There are not only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 1188
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1189

{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 1196
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called 1198
the 1199

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1202
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1203
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 1205

{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: 1251

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is not: 1252

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
the 1258

{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). 1261
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There’s only one 1266
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges between any given neutrosophic amount of 1267
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any neutrosophic 1268
SuperHyperCycle at all. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1269










the 1321


{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 1331
SuperHyperCycle. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1332

{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 1382

{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 1443

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1446
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 1447
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 1448

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









the 1506

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1509
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 1510
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected 1511
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 1512
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1513
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

1520

1521

1522

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperCycle = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
1523

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


1529

1530

1531


1535

1536

1537

1538


1552

1553

1554

1555


1560

1561

1562

1563


1567

1568

1569

1570

There are only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 1583

1585

1586

1587

1588


1590

1591

1592

1593


1596

1597

1598

1599

the 1605

1608

1609

1610

1611

Algorithm is straightforward. 1614
Figure 1. 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)
Proposition 6.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1619
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 1620
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 1621
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperCycle is 1622
the cardinality of 1623
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 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
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 1624
cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 1625
7 The Departures on The Theoretical Results 1626
Toward Theoretical Motivations 1627
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on 1628
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1629
Proposition 7.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1630
Then 1631
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 1632
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then there’s no cycle. Thus the notion 1633
of quasi is up. The latter is straightforward. 1634
Example 7.2. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1635
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1636
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperCycle. 1637
Figure 21. a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

SuperHyperCycle in the Example (7.2)
Proposition 7.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1638
Then 1639

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 1640
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Then there’s at least one cycle. Thus 1641
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperCycle 1642
could be applied. The latter is straightforward. 1643
Example 7.4. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1644
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1645
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1646
Proposition 7.5. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1647
Figure 22. a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (7.4)
Then 1648

= {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 +, . . . .
Proof. Let P : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a longest path taken from a connected 1649
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then there’s no cycle. Thus the notion of 1650
quasi is up. The latter is straightforward. 1651
Example 7.6. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1652
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1653
by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic 1654
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1655
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1656
Proposition 7.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1657
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1658

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 .
Figure 23. a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (7.6)
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Then there’s at least one cycle. 1660
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1661
SuperHyperCycle could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every 1662
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1663
C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a longest cycle taken from a connected neutrosophic 1664
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only four SuperHyperVertices and only four 1665
SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz . The latter is 1666
straightforward. 1667
Example 7.8. In the neutrosophic Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic 1668
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic 1669
featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 1670
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1671
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 1672
SuperHyperModel (24), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1673
Proposition 7.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1674
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1675

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. 1677
Figure 24. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-

sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the Example (7.8)
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1678
SuperHyperCycle could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every 1679
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1680
C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz is a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1681
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only z 0 SuperHyperVertices and only z 0 SuperHyperEdges are 1682
attained in any solution C : V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vz . The latter is straightforward. 1683
Example 7.10. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic 1684
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The 1685
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, 1686
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic 1687
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is 1688
the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1689
Proposition 7.11. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1690
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1691

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then there’s at least one cycle. Thus 1693
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperCycle 1694
could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperCycle proposes some longest cycles 1695
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1696
Figure 25. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the Example (7.10)
Figure 26. a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-

sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the neutrosophic Example (7.12)
Example 7.12. In the neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic 1697
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1698
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1699
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1700
ESHW : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (26), is the neutrosophic 1701
SuperHyperCycle. 1702
8 Background 1703
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 1704
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 1705
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 1706
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 1707
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 1708
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 1709
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 1710
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 1711
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 1712
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 1713
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 1714
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 1715
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 1716
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 1717
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 1718
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 1719
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1720
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 1721
majority of notions. 1722
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 1723
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 1724
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 1725
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 1726
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 1727
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 1728
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 1729
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 1730
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 1731
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 1732
based on initial background. 1733
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 1734
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 1735
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 1736
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 1737
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 1738
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 1739
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 1740
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 1741
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 1742
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 1743
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 1744
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 1745
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1746
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1747
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 1748
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 1749
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 1750
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 1751
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 1752
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 1753
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 1754
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 1755
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 1756
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 1757
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 1758
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 1759
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 1760
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 1761
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 1762
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 1763
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1764
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 1765
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 1766
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1767
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 1768
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 1769
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 1770
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1771
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 1772
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 1773
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 1774
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 1775
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 1776
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 1777
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1778
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 1779
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 1780
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 1781
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 1782
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 1783
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1784
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 1785
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 1786
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 1787
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 1788
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 1789
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1790
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 1791
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1792
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 1793
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 1794
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 1795
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 1796
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 1797
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 1798
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 1799
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 1800
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 1801
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1802
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1803
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 1804
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 1805
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 1806
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 1807
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1808
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 1809
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 1810
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1811
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 1812
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 1813
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1814
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 1815
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1816
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 1817
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 1818
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1819
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 1820
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 1821
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 1822
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 1823
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 1824
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 1825
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 1826
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1827
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 1828
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 1829
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 1830
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 1831
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 1832
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 1833
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 1834
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 1835
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 1836
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 1837
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 1838
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 1839
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 1840
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 1841
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 1842
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 1843
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 1844
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 1845
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 1846
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 1847
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 1848
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 1849
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 1850
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 1851
See the seminal researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the framework 1852
of Extreme SuperHyperCycle theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle theory, and 1853
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular research books in 1854
Scribd in the terms of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science 1855
is on [39, 40]. 1856
References 1857
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1858
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1859
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1860
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1861
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1862
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 1863
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 1864
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1865
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1866
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 1867
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 1868
(2022) 242-263. 1869
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1870
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1871
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1872
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1873
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1874
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1875
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 1876
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 1877
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1878
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1879
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1880
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 1881
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 1882
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 1883
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 1884
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 1885
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 1886
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 1887
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 1888
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 1889
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1890
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 1891
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 1892
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 1893
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 1894
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 1895
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 1896
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 1897
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 1898
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 1899
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 1900
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 1901
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 1902
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 1903
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 1904
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 1905
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 1906
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1907
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 1908
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 1909
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1910
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1911
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1912
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 1913
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1914
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1915
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1916
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1917
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1918
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1919
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1920
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1921
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1922
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1923
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1924
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1925
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1926
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1928
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1929
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1930
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1931
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 1932
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1933
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 1934
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 1935
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1936
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 1937
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1938
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1939
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1940
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 1941
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1942
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 1943
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 1944
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 1945
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 1946
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 1947
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 1948
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 1949
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 1950
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 1951
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 1952
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 1953
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 1954
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 1955
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 1956
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1957
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1958
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1959
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 1960
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 1961
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 1962
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 1963
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 1964
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1965
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 1966
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 1968
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1969
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 1970
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 1971
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 1972
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1973
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1974
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 1975
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1976
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1977
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1980
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 1981
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1982
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1983
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 1984
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1985
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1986
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1987
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 1988
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1989
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1990
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 1991
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1992
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1993
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1994
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 1995
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 1996
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 1997
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 1998
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 1999
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 2000
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 2001
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 2002
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 2003
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 2004
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 2005
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 2006
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 2007
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 2008
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 2009
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 2010
View publication stats

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

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

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Research On Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · February 2023

287 PUBLICATIONS 2,883 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New 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

Proposition 2.1. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 44

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 45

(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 47

Proposition 2.2. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 51

(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 52

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 53

Proposition 2.3. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 58

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 59

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 61

(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 64

Proposition 2.4. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 66

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 67

(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 69

Proposition 2.5. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 73

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperCycle; 74

(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 76

(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperCycle. 77

Proposition 2.6. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 78

maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle; 80

maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle. 84

Proposition 2.7. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 85

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

Proposition 2.8. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 92

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2