New Ideas On Super Stale by Hyper Stalk of Stable-Decompositions in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369245643
New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Decompositions In Cancer's

Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · March 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28456.44805
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
371 PUBLICATIONS 6,267 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 15 March 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 2
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Stable-Decompositions pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 14
∀Ea0 , Eb0 : Ea0 andEb0 are Stable;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 16
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 19
∀Va0 , Vb0 : Va0 andVb0 are Stable;
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 21
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 24
re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 25
v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 26
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. ((Neutrosophic) 27
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 28
S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 30
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 31
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 34
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 35
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36
conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 39
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 40
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 44
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45
Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 48
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 54
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 55
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 56
conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 57
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme 58
power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 59
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 65
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 66
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 67
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive 68
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they 69
form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power 70
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 71
V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 72
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 77
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 78
conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 79
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 80
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; a Neutrosophic 81
V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 82
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 87
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 88
Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 89
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 91
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients 97
defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 98
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 99
conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 100
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme 101
power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 102
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 103
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 108
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 109
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 110
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive 111
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they 112
form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power 113
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 114
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 115
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Two different types of 116
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 117
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 118
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 119
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 120
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 121
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 122
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 123
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 124
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 125
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 126
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 127
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 128
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 129
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 130
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 131
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 132
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 133
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 134
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 135
δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 136
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 137
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 138
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 139
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 140
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 141
δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a maximal Neutrosophic of 142
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 143
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 144
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 145
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 146
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 147
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 148
version of a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . Since there’s more ways to get 149
type-results to make a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions more understandable. For 150
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a need to 151
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperStable-Decompositions ”. The 152
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 153
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 154
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . It’s redefined a 155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the mentioned Table holds, 156
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 157
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 158
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 159
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 160
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 161
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 162
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 163
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 164
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 165
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 166
have all SuperHyperStable-Decompositions until the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 167
then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” but otherwise, it isn’t a 168
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . There are some instances about the clarifications 169
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperStable-Decompositions ”. These two 170
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 171
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 172
. For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a 173
need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” 174
and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions ”. The SuperHyperVertices and 175
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 176
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume 177
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if 178
the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions are redefined to a 179
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” if the intended Table holds. It’s 180
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 181
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 182
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 183
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 184
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 185
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 186
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 188
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 189
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 190
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” where it’s the strongest [the 191
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions amid the 192
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 193
.] SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 194
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 195
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 196
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 197
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s 198
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s 199
SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 200
it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 201
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 202
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 203
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 204
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 205
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 206
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 207
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 208
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 209
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 210
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 211
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 212
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 213
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 214
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 215
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 216
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 217
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 218
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 219
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 220
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 221
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 222
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 223
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 224
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 225
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 226
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, SuperHyperStar, 227
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 228
either the longest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions or the strongest 229
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 230
longest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, called SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 231
and the strongest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, called Neutrosophic 232
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 233
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 234
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 235
of a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. There isn’t any formation of any 236
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 237
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 238
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions theory, 239
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 240
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 241
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 242
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 243
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 244
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 245
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 246
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 247
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 248
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 249
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 250
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 251
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 252
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 253
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 254
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 255
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 256
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 257
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 258
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 259
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 260
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 261
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 262
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 263
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 264
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 265
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 266
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 267
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 268
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 269
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 270
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 271
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 272
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 273
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 274
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 275
formally called “ SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” in the themes of jargons and 276
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 277
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 278
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 279
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 280
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 281
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 282
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 283
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 284
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 285
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 286
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 287
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, SuperHyperStar, 288
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 289
either the optimal SuperHyperStable-Decompositions or the Extreme 290
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general 291
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 292
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 293
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 294
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. There isn’t any formation of any 295
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 296
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 297
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 298
find the “ amount of SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” of either individual of cells or 299
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 300
“amount of SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 301
fixed groups of group of cells? 302
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 303
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 304
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 305
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 306
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” and “Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” 307
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 308
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 309
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 310
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 311
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 312
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 313
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 314
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 315
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 316
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 317
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 318
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 319
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 320
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, are 321
figured out in sections “ SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” and “Extreme 322
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 323
Stable-Decompositions to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 324
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 325
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 326
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 327
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 328
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 329
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 330
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 331
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 332
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 333
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 334
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 335
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”, “Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”, 336
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There 337
are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense 338
about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 339
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ 340
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 341
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 342
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 343
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 344
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 345
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 346
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 347
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 348
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 349
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 350
Research On the Redeemed Ways 351
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 352
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [131],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 353
Set](Ref. [131],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 354
(NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 355
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [131], 356
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 357
(NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 358
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [131],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 359
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [131],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 360
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [131]. 361
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 362
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 363
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [131],Definition 2.1,p.1). 364
Let X be a Stable-Decompositions 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 365
+
]− 0, 1 [. 366
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [131],Definition 2.2,p.2). 367
Let X be a Stable-Decompositions of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x. A single valued Neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by
truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a
falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1].
A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,

indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [131],Definition 368
2.5,p.2). 369
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 370
pair S = (V, E), where 371
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 372
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 373
1, 2, . . . , n); 374
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 375
V; 376
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 377
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 378
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 379
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 380
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 381
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 382
(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 . 383
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 384
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 385
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 386
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 387
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 388
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 389
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 390
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 391
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 392
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 393
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 394
(Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3). 395
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 396
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 397
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 398
characterized as follow-up items. 399
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 400
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 401
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 402
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 403
HyperEdge; 404
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 405
SuperEdge; 406
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 407
SuperHyperEdge. 408
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 409
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 410
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [131], Definition 2.7, p.3). 411
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 412
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 413
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 414
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 415
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 416
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 417
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

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

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 418
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 419
pair S = (V, E), where 420
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 421
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 422
1, 2, . . . , n); 423
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 424
V; 425
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 426
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 427
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 428
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 429
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 430
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 431
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 432
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 433
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 434
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 435
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 436
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 437
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 438
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 439
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 440
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 441
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 442
(Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3). 443
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 444
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 445
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 446
characterized as follow-up items. 447
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 448
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 449
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 450
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 451
HyperEdge; 452
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 453
SuperEdge; 454
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 455
SuperHyperEdge. 456
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 457
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 458
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 459
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 460
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 461
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 462
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 463
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 464
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 465
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 466
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 467
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 468
given SuperHyperEdges; 469
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 470
SuperHyperEdges; 471
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 472
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 473
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 474
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 475
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 476
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 477
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 478
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 479
common SuperVertex. 480
Definition 3.14. Let a 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 SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 481
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 482
of following conditions hold: 483
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 484
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 485
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 486
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 487
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 488
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 489
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 490
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 491
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 492
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 493
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 494
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 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 ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 495
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 496
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 497
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 498
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 499
SuperHyperPath . 500
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 501
(Ref. [131],Definition 5.3,p.7). 502
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 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 503
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 504
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 505
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 506
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 507
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 508
(NSHE)). (Ref. [131],Definition 5.4,p.7). 509
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 510
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 511
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 512
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 513
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 514
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 515
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 516
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 518
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 519
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 521
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 522
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 523
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 524
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 525
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). 526
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 528
either V 0 or E 0 is called 529
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following 530
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 531
criteria holds 532
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following 533
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 534
criteria holds 535
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 536
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following 537
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 538
criteria holds 539
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions f the following 540
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 541
criteria holds 542
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 543
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 544
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 545
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 548
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). 549
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 551
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 552
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 556
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 557
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 558
SuperHyperEdges in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme 559
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 560
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 561
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 562
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 567
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 568
Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 569
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 570
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 571
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 572
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 578
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 579
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 580
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive Extreme 581
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme power is 583
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 584
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 585
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 591
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 592
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 593
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 594
conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 595
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 596
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded 597
to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 598
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 599
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 604
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 605
SuperHyperVertices in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme 606
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 608
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 609
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 614
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 615
Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 616
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 617
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 619
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 627
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme power is 630
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 631
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 632
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 638
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 639
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 640
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 641
conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 642
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 643
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded 644
to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 645
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). 646
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 647
(i) an δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a Neutrosophic kind of 648
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions such that either of the following 649
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 650
s∈S: 651
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 652
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 653
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a Neutrosophic 654
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions such that either of the 655
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 656
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 657
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 658
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 659
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 660
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a 661
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 662
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 663
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 664
assign to the values. 665
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 666
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 667
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 668
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 669
understandable. 670
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 671
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 672
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 673
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 674
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 675
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 676
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 677
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 678
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 679
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make 680
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions more Neutrosophicly understandable. 681
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a 682
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 683
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 684
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 685
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 686
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. It’s redefined a 687
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the Table (3) holds. 688

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions But 689
As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 690
Super Forms 691
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 692
Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 693
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 694
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 695
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 696
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 697
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 699
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 700
s-independent criteria 701
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 702
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 703
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 704
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Any k-function 706
Stable-Decompositions like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 707
2-function Stable-Decompositions like E is called Extreme Variable. 708
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 709
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 710
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A Extreme k-Variable E has a 712
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 713
Expectation criteria 714
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 715
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A Extreme number is called 717
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 718
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 719
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let m and n propose special 720
Stable-Decompositions. Then with m ≥ 4n, 721
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a Extreme 722
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 723
independently with probability Stable-Decompositions p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] 724
and H := G[S]. 725
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Extreme number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the Extreme
number of crossings of H. The trivial bound noted above, when applied to H, yields the
inequality Z ≥ cr(H) ≥ Y − 3X. By linearity of Extreme Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
Now E(X) = pn, E(Y ) = p2 m (each SuperHyperEdge having some SuperHyperEnds)

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 726
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
727
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 728
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of 729
n points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane 730
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 731
Proof. Form a Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P 732
whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseDecompositionsive points on the 733
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 734
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 735
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 736
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 737
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 738
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 740
of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 741
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 742
Proof. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 743
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 744
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 745

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 746
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
747
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 748
between conseDecompositionsive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 749
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 750
n−1
X
e(H) = ini = 2k − n1 − 2n2 ≥ 2k − 2n.
i=3
Some SuperHyperPairs of SuperHyperVertices of H might be joined by some parallel 751
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 752
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 753
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 754
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 755
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 756
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 757
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 758
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let X be a 759
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 760
E(X)
P (X ≥ t) ≤ .
t
Proof.
X X
E(X) = {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V } ≥ {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
X X
{tP (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t} = t {P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
tP (X ≥ t).
Dividing the first and last members by t yields the asserted inequality. 761
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 762
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let Xn be a nonnegative 763
integer-valued variable in a probability Stable-Decompositions (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 764
E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 765
Proof. 766
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A special SuperHyperGraph 768
in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 769
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 771
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 772
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 773
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 774
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 775
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 776
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 777
E(XS ) = P (XS = 1) = P (AS ) = (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
Let X be the number of stable SuperHyperSets of cardinality k + 1 in G. Then 778
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 779
X
E(X) = {E(XS ) : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1} = (n choose k+1)(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
We bound the right-hand side by invoking two elementary inequalities: 780
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 781
nk+1 e−p)(k+1)choose2 ne−pk/2k+1

E(X) ≤ =
(k + 1)! (k + 1)!
Suppose now that k = d2p−1 log ne. Then k ≥ 2p−1 log n, so ne−pk/2 ≤ 1. Because k 782
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 783
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 784
n → ∞. Consequently, a Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 785
number at most k. 786
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 787
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A Extreme k-Variable E has a 789
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 790
Variance criteria 791
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let X be a Extreme 793
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 794
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let X be a Extreme Variable and 796
let t be a positive real number. Then 797
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ 2
= .
t t2
798
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let Xn be a Extreme 800
Variable in a probability Stable-Decompositions (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 801
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 802
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 804
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 805
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 806
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 808
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 809
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 810
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 811
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. As in the proof of related Theorem, 813
the result is straightforward. 814
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f 816
and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 817
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 818
or 819
∗ ∗ ∗
(ii). f (k − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k − 1 or k . 820
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. The latter is straightforward. 822
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 823
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let P be a monotone property of 825
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 826
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 827
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 828
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 829
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 830
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let F be a fixed Extreme 832
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 833
copy of F as a Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 834
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let F be a nonempty 836
balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 837
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 838
as a Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 839
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. The latter is straightforward. 841
Example 4.20. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 842
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 843
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 844
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 845
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 846
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 847
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 848
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 849
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme 850
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 851
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 852
C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Decompositions

= {{Ei }}4i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions
= {{Vi }i6=1,2 , {Vi }i6=1,4 , {Vi }i6=2,4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
853
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Extreme Example (16.3)
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 856
E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 857
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 858
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 859
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 860
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 861
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 862

= {{Ei }}4i=1 .
= {{Vi }i6=1,2 , {Vi }i6=1,4 , {Vi }i6=2,4 }.
863
straightforward. 866

= {{Ei }}4i=1 .
= {{Vi }i6=1,2 , {Vi }i6=1,3 , {Vi }i6=2,3 }.
867




= {{E4 , E3 , E2 }, {E5 , E3 , E2 }, {E1 , E3 }, {Ei }}
= {{Vi , Vj }Vi ∈{V1 ,V2 ,N,F }, Vj ∈{V4 ,O,H} ,
{V3 , O}, {Vi }}.
871

= {{Ei }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
= {{Va , Vb , Vc , Vd }a∈{1,2,3,4},b∈{6,7,8},c∈{9,10,11,12},d∈{13,14,15},{Vi } .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial
= z2.
875


= {{E2i+1i=04 ,E2j+23 }
i=04
{E2i+2i=04 ,E2j+23 },{Eab+c },{Ei }}.

i=04 a,b≥3

= z4.
= {{V2i+1i=04 ,V2j+23 }
i=04
{V2i+2i=04 ,V2j+23 },{Vab+c },{Vi }}.C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial

i=04 a,b≥3
4
=z .
879

C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Decompositions =

{{E2i+1i=04 },
{Eab+ca,b≥3 }, {Ei }}.
= z3.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions =
{V2i+1i=04 },
{Vab+ca,b≥3 }, {Vi }}.
= z3.
883


{{E1 , E2 , E3 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j∈{1,2,3} , {Ea }}.
= z3.
{{Va , Vb , Vc }a∈{1,2,3},b∈{4,5,6,7},c∈{8,9,10,11} ,
{Vd , Ve }Vd ∈Ei ,Ve ∈Ej ,i6=j,i,j6=4 , {Vf }}.
= z3.
887

= {{E2i+1i=04 ,E2j+23 }
i=04
{E2i+2i=04 ,E2j+23 },{Eab+c },{Ei }}.

i=04 a,b≥3

= z4.
= {{V2i+1i=04 ,V2j+23 }
i=04
{V2i+2i=04 ,V2j+23 },{Vab+c },{Vi }}.C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial

i=04 a,b≥3
4
=z .

891

{{E1 , E2 , E3 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j∈{1,2,3} , {Ea }}.
= z3.
{{Va , Vb , Vc }a∈{1,2,3},b∈{4,5,6,7},c∈{8,9,10,11} ,
{Vd , Ve }Vd ∈Ei ,Ve ∈Ej ,i6=j,i,j6=4 , {Vf }}.
= z3.
895




{{E6 , E7 , E8 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j{6,7,8} , {Ek }}.
= z3.
{{V1 , V6(4) }, {V2 , V6(5) }, {V3 , V5(4) }, {Vk }}.
= z4.
899

= {{Ei }i=2,3,4,5,6 },
A ⊆ {Ei }i=2,3,4,5,6 }, {Ei }}.
= z2.
= {Va }a=4,5,6,9,10 ,
A ⊆ {Va }a=2,3,4,5,6 }, {Vb }b=1,2,3,7,8 ,
A ⊆ {Va }b=1,2,3,7,8 }, {Vc }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial =
= z5.

903

{{E6 , E7 , E8 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j{6,7,8} , {Ek }}.
= z3.
{{V1 , V6(4) }, {V2 , V6(5) }, {V3 , V5(4) }, {Vk }}.
= z4.
907

= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{V2 , V3 }, {Va }}.
= z2.

911

= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V2i+2i=01 ,V5 },
A ⊆ {V2i+2i=01 ,V5 },{Va }}
= z3.
915




= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V1 , V3 , V10 , V22 }, . . .}.
= az b .
919

= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V27 , V2 , V10 , V22 }, . . .}.
= az b .
923


= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V27 , V2 , V10 , V22 }, . . .}.
= az b .
927

= {{E2i+1i=05 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ei }}.
i=05

= z3.
= {{VE2i+1 }, B ⊆ {VE2i+1 }, {Va }}.
i=05 i=05

= z3.
931




= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{INTERNAL SuperHyperVERTICES}}.
= az b .
935

= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{Vi }}.
= z.

939

= {{E2i+2i=01 }, A ⊆ {E2i+2i=01 }, {Ei }}.
= 2z 2 .
= {{Va , Vb , Vc , Vd
}Va ∈{R,P,M,J,V1 },Vb ∈{H6 ,O6 ,E6 ,C6 },Vc ∈{S6 ,R6 ,T6 ,V7 ,V8 ,V9 },Va ∈{T3 ,S3 ,U3 ,V4 ,V5 } },
{Va }}.
= z2.
943
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 944
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 945
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 946

Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 947
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 948
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 949
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 950
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 951
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 952
any given Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions minus all Extreme 953
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 954
unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme 955
SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions, minus all Extreme 956
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 957
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

a Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions 958
is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 959
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 960
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 961
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 962
Stable-Decompositions in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 963
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 964
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Extreme 965
R-Stable-Decompositions. 966
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Stable-Decompositions has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
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 Extreme type-result-R-Stable-Decompositions with the least Extreme 967
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 968
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 969
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 970
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Extreme type-result-Stable-Decompositions. In other words, the least cardinality, the 971
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Extreme type-result-Stable-Decompositions is 972
the cardinality of 973
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor
amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Extreme number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme
SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

propose property such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex of a Extreme
SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme
SuperHyperVertices but the maximum Extreme cardinality indicates that these
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the Extreme lower bound in the term of
Extreme sharpness. In other words, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions.
It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to
deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and
cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes,
are well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the
examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 974
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 975
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 976
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 977
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 978
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 979
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 980
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 981
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions decorates the

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is a Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 982
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 983
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 984
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 985
Assume a Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of the

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

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The formal definition
is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and only
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions

but with slightly differences in the maximum Extreme cardinality amid those Extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Extreme cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 986
Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
987
Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in a Extreme Stable-Decompositions, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Stable-Decompositions is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 988
R-Stable-Decompositions is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 989
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 990
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 991
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 992
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Stable-Decompositions in some cases but 993
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 994
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 995
contained in a Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions. 996
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 997
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 998
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 999
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1000
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 1001
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1002
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1003
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1004
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1005
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1006
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions 1007
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1008
literarily, a Extreme embedded R-Stable-Decompositions. The SuperHyperNotions of 1009
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1010
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1011
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1012
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1013
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 1014
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 1015
Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions. The interior types of the Extreme 1016
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors 1017
are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common 1018
connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the 1019
Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the 1020
Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions. Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be 1021
used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with 1022
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the 1023
embedded Extreme Stable-Decompositions, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme 1024
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 1025
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme 1026
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1027
Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the 1028
exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions. 1029
The Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 1030
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, 1031
the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions with the inclusion of all Extreme 1032
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is a Extreme 1033
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme 1034
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1035
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1036
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions minus 1037
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1038
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1039
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions, 1040
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1041
The main definition of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions has two titles. a 1042
Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1043
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1044
number, there’s a Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions with that quasi-maximum 1045
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1046
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1047
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1048
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositionss for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1049
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Stable-Decompositions 1050
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme 1051
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions, again and more in the operations of collecting all the 1052
Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositionss acted on the all possible used formations of 1053
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number 1054
is 1055
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1056
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositionss. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1057
GExtreme Stable-Decompositions be a Extreme number, a Extreme SuperHyperSet and a 1058
Extreme Stable-Decompositions. Then 1059
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Stable-Decompositions ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Stable-Decompositions is 1060
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1061
GExtreme Stable-Decompositions ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1062
technical definition for the Extreme Stable-Decompositions. 1063
GExtreme Stable-Decompositions =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1064
Stable-Decompositions poses the upcoming expressions. 1065
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1066
= max zExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1067

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1068


1069
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1070

1071

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1072
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1073
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1074
incident to a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1075
Quasi-Stable-Decompositions” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1076
Quasi-Stable-Decompositions” since “Extreme Quasi-Stable-Decompositions” happens 1077
“Extreme Stable-Decompositions” in a Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1078
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1079
Stable-Decompositions” in a Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1080
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1081
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1082
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Stable-Decompositions”, and “Extreme 1083
Stable-Decompositions” are up. 1084
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1085
GExtreme Stable-Decompositions be a Extreme number, a Extreme 1086
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Extreme Stable-Decompositions and the new terms are 1087
up. 1088

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1089
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1090
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1091
And with go back to initial structure, 1092


1093
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1094

1095

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1096
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions if 1097
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1098
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1099
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1100
them. 1101
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1102
are coming up. 1103
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions.

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions C(ESHG) for an Extreme

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

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

Stable-Decompositions, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1104
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1105
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1106
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1107
“Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions” 1108
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1109
Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions, 1110
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s
a Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Stable-Decompositions,
are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1111
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1112
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1113
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1114
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1115
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1116
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1117
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a Extreme 1118
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1119
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1120
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1121
exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1122
Consider there’s a Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions with the least cardinality, the 1123
lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a connected Extreme 1124
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1125
SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the Extreme 1126
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 1127
Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions. 1128
Since it doesn’t have the maximum Extreme cardinality of a Extreme 1129
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Extreme 1130
SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme 1131
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum 1132
Extreme cardinality of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but 1133
it isn’t a Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme 1134
procedure such that such that there’s a Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 1135
Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Extreme 1136
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Extreme 1137
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme 1138
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme 1139
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one 1140
Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1141
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1142
Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1143
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Stable-Decompositions, VESHE , is a Extreme 1144
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any 1145
kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme 1146
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1147
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality 1148
of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1149
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, 1150
in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1151
R-Stable-Decompositions only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1152
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1153
there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1154
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1155
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1156
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1157
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Stable-Decompositions, is up. There’s neither 1158
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme 1159
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1160
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Stable-Decompositions. The Extreme 1161
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1162
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−Decompositions
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−Decompositions = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Stable-Decompositions. The 1163
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1164
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Stable-Decompositions C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1165
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1166
the maximum Extreme cardinality of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1167
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1168
of a Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1169
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1170
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme 1171
Stable-Decompositions is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called 1172
the Extreme Stable-Decompositions is a Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two 1173
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1174
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1175
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1176
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1177
Extreme Stable-Decompositions is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1178
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1179
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1180
Stable-Decompositions. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1181
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1182
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Stable-Decompositions C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1183
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1184
that there’s no a Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices given 1185
by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Stable-Decompositions and 1186
it’s an Extreme Stable-Decompositions. Since it’s 1187
the maximum Extreme cardinality of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1188
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1189
of a Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1190
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three Extreme 1191
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1192
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Stable-Decompositions, 1193
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1194
Stable-Decompositions, not: 1195
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1196
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1197
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1198
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1199
“Extreme Stable-Decompositions” 1200
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1201
Extreme Stable-Decompositions, 1202
is only and only 1203
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1204
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1205
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1206
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1207
SuperHyperClasses. 1208
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1209

= {{E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c },
A ⊆ {E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c ,{Ei }}.
= z3.
IN T ERN AL
= {{V2i+1 },
2i+1=b|E N SHG |c
IN T ERN AL
A⊆ {V2i+1 2i+1=b|EN SHG |c },{Va }}.
C(NSHG)Extreme V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial 1210
3
=z . 1211
Proof. Let 1212
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1213
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1214
There’s a new way to redefine as 1215
ViEXT ERN AL ∼ VjEXT ERN AL ≡

∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez ≡
∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez .
The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )| ≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 1216
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1217
The latter is straightforward. 1218
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1219
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1220
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1221
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1222
Figure 23. a Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Example (16.5)
Then 1223

= {{E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c },
A ⊆ {E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c ,{Ei }}.
= z3.
IN T ERN AL
= {{V2i+1 },
2i+1=b|E N SHG |c
IN T ERN AL
A⊆ {V2i+1 2i+1=b|EN SHG |c },{Va }}.
3
=z . 1225
Proof. Let 1226
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Extreme Example (16.7)
1227
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1228

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1233
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1234
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1235
1236
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1237

= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{ViIN T ERN AL }, A ⊆ {ViIN T ERN AL }, {V IN T ERN AL }}.
= z3.
Proof. Let 1238
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1239
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1240
a new way to redefine as 1241

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1245
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1246
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1247
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1248
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1249
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1250
Figure 25. a Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Then 1251

= {{MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
A ⊆ {MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
{Ei }}.
= z3.
= {{One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
B ⊆ {One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
{Vi }}.
= z3.
Proof. Let 1252
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1253
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1254

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1258
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1259
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions could be applied. 1260
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1261
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1262
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions taken from a connected Extreme 1263
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1264
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1265
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1267
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1268
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1269
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1270
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1271
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1272
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1273
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Example (16.11)
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1274

= {{MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
A ⊆ {MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
{Ei }}.
= z3.
= {{One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
B ⊆ {One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
{Vi }}.
= z3.
Proof. Let 1275
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1276
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1278

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1281
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1282
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions could be applied. 1283
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1284
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1286
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1287
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1290
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1291
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1292
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1293
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1294
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1295
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1297
Figure 27. a Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Example (16.13)
Then, 1298

∗
= {{E2i+1 },
2i+1=b|E N SHG |c
∗
A⊆ {E2i+1 2i+1=b|E ∗
∗
|c ,{Ei }}.
N SHG

= z3.
IN T ERN AL
= {{V2i+1 2i+1=b|E ∗ |c },
N SHG
IN T ERN AL
A⊆ {V2i+1 2i+1=b|E ∗ |c },{Va }}.
N SHG
=z3 . 1300
Proof. Let 1301
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1302
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1304

Figure 28. a Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Extreme Example (16.15)
The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1307
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1308
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions could be applied. The 1309
unique embedded SuperHyperStable-Decompositions proposes some longest 1310
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1311
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1313
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1314
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1315
of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme 1316
SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1317
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1318
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1319
For the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 1320
and the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, some general results are 1321
introduced. 1322
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is 1323
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1324
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Then 1325
Extreme SuperHyperStable − Decompositions =

{theSuperHyperStable − Decompositionsof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperStable − Decompositions
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStable−Decompositions. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1326
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1327
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1328
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1329
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and 1330
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions coincide. 1331
the alphabet. Then a conseDecompositionsive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1333
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if and only if it’s a 1334
the alphabet. Then a conseDecompositionsive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1337
strongest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if and only if it’s a longest 1338
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1340
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme 1341
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is its SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and reversely. 1342
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Extreme 1343
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, SuperHyperStar, 1344
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1345
letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is its 1346
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and reversely. 1347
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1348
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1349
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined. 1350
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1351
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1352
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1356
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1357
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1359
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined if and only if its 1360
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined. 1361
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1362
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined if and only if its 1363
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1367
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined if and only if its 1368
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1370
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1371
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1372
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1373
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1374
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1375
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1376
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1377
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1378
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1379
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1380
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1381
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1382
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1383
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1384
independent SuperHyperSet is 1385
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1386
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1387
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1388
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1389
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1390
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1391
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1392
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions/SuperHyperPath. Then 1393
V is a maximal 1394
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1395
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1396
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1397
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1398
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1399
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1400
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1401
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1402
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1403
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1404
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1405
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1406
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1407
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1408
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1409
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1411
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions/SuperHyperPath. Then 1413
the number of 1414
(i) : the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1415
(ii) : the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1416
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1417
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1418
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1419
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1420
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1421
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1422
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1424
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1425
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1426
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1427
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1428
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1429
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1430
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1431
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1434
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1435
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1436
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1437
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1441
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1442
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1443
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1447
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1448
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1449
is a 1450
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1454
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1455
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1456
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1459
number of 1460
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1464
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1465
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1466
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1468
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1469
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1470
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1472
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1473
(iv) : SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1477
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1478
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1479
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1480
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1481
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1482
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1483
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1484
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1488
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1489
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1493
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1494
setting of dual 1495
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1499
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1500
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1501
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1503
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1505
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1506
dual 1507
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1511
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1512
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1514
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1517
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1518
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1519
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1523
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1528
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1529
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1530
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1531
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1532
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1533
such that 1534
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1535
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1536
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1537
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then 1538
(i) S is SuperHyperStable-Decompositions set; 1539
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1540
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1541
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1542
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1543
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1544
connected. Then 1545
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1546
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1547
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1548
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1549
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1551
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1552
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1553
a dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1554
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1555
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1558
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1559
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1560
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1561
dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1562
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1563
Then 1564
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1565
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1567
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1568
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1569
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1570
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1572
Then 1573
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1574
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1576
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1577
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1578
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1580
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1581
(ii) Γ = 1; 1582
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1583
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1584
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1586
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1587
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1588
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1589
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1590
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1591
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1592
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1593
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1596
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1597
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1598
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1600
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1601
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1603

bnc ; 1604
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1605
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1607
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1608
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1609
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF; 1610
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1611
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1612
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1613
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF : (V, E). 1614
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1615
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1616
SuperHyperSet. Then 1617
bn
2 c+1
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1618
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF; 1619
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1620

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1621
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1622
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1624
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1625
SuperHyperSet. Then 1626
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1627
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF : (V, E); 1628
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1629

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1630
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1631
following statements hold; 1634
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1635
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is an 1636
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1637
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1638
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is a dual 1639
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1640
following statements hold; 1642
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1643
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is an 1644
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1645
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1646
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is a dual 1647
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1648
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1649
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1650
hold; 1651
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1652
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1653
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1654
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1656
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1658
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1659
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1660
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1661
hold; 1662
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1663
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1665
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1667
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1669
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1670
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1672
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1673
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1674
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1676
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1678
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1681
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1683
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1684
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1685
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1687
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1689
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1690
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1692
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1694
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Then following statements hold; 1695
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1696
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1698
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1700
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1703
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1705
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Then following statements hold; 1706
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1707
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1709
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1711
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1714
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1715
Recognition 1716
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1717
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1718
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1719
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1720
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1721
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1722
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1723
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1724
long-term Extreme function. 1725
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1726
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1727
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1728
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1729
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1730
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1731
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1732
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1733
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1734
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1735
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Extreme 1736
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1738
find either the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions or the Extreme 1739
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1740
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1741
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1742
SuperHyperModel 1743
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1744
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1745
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1746
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1747
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1748
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1749
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1750
the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1751
Figure 29. a Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 30. a Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1752
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1753
SuperHyperModel 1754
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1755
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1756
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1757
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1758
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1759
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1761
is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1762
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1763
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1764
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1765
The SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Extreme 1766
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions are defined on a real-world application, titled 1767
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1768
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1769
recognitions? 1770
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1771
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions? 1772
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1773
compute them? 1774
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1775
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions? 1776
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Extreme 1777
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1778
and they’re based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, are there else? 1779
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1780
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1781
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1782
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1783
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1784
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1785
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1786
highlighted. 1787
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1788
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1789
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1790
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1791
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1792
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, finds the convenient 1793
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1794
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1795
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1796
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1797
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1798
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1799
the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Extreme 1800
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 1801
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 1802
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1803
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1804
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1805
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1806
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1807
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1808
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” in the 1809
themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the 1810
embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table 1811
(6), benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1812
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperStable-Decompositions
3. Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1813
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1814
Forms 1815
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1816
Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 1817
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1818
V 0 or E 0 is called 1819
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1820
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1821
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1822
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1823
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1824
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1825
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1826
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1827
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1828
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1829
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1830
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1831
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1832
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1833
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1835
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1836
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1837
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1838
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1839
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1840
SuperHyperEdges in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1841
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1843
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1844
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1845
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1846
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1847
SuperHyperEdges of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1848
conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1849
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1850
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1851
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1852
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1854
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1855
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1856
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive 1857
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1858
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1859
Extreme coefficient; 1860
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1861
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a 1863
a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive 1867
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1869
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1871
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1878
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1879
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1883
Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 1884
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 1885
SuperHyperDuality; 1886
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1887
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1888
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1892
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1893
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the 1895
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 1896
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1897
of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1903
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the 1905
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient. 1906
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1910
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1911
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1912
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1913
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1914
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1916
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Extreme 1919
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1920
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1921
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a 1922
Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 1923
given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1924


C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3 , V13 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

(2 × 2 × 2)z.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V2i+1i=05 }.



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1967
Then 1968
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 3

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1969
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1973
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1977
Then 1979
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality

.
Proof. Let 1980
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1988
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1989
Then 1990
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1991
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2001
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2002
ESHB : (V, E). Then 2003
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
=( (min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |)choose|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |)
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
= {ViEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2004
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Emini |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) | , Vmin i |Pi
ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) |+1

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDuality. Thus the notion of quasi 2009
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2010
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2013
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2014
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2022

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2025
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 2026

P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2042
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2043
Then, 2045
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2046
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2047
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2048

∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez∗ ≡
∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez∗ .
The unique embedded SuperHyperDuality proposes some longest SuperHyperDuality 2053
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2054
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2056
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2057
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 2058
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2059
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2060
Forms 2062
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2063
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2067
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2068
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2069
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2070
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2072
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2073
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2074
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2075
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2077
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2078
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2079
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2082
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2083
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2084
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2085
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2086
the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2087
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2088
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2089
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2091
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2095
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2096
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2097
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2098
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2104
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2106
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme 2108
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of a Extreme 2111
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2114
coefficient; 2115
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2116
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2118
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2120
in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 2121
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2122
SuperHyperJoin; 2123
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2124
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2126
SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2128
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2130
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2131
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2133
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the 2139
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2141
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme 2143
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme 2146
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2149
coefficient. 2150
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2154
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2155
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2160
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2162
given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2168


C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V2i+1i=05 }.


C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2212
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin

.
Proof. Let 2213
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2217
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2221
Then 2223

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Proof. Let 2224
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2232
Then 2234
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2235

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2245
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

= (PERFECT MATCHING).
{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
where ∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) |
= min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2248
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2253
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2254
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2257
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2266

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2269
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2270
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2271

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2274
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2275
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2287
Then, 2289

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Proof. Let 2290
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2291

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2295
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2296
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2297
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2298
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2303
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2304
Forms 2306
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2307
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2311
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2312
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2313
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2314
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2316
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2317
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2318
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2319
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2321
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2322
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2323
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2324
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2327
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2329
SuperHyperPerfect; 2334
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2335
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2337
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2341
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2342
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2343
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2344
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2350
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2352
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a 2354
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2360
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2362
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2363
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2369
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2370
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2371
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2374
Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2375
SuperHyperPerfect; 2377
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2378
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2379
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the 2386
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2388
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the 2396
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2401
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2407
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2415


C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2 , V7 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2i+1i=05 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 6 .



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2459
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2460
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2464
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2468
Then 2470
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2471
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2479
Then 2481
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2482

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2492
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2495
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2500
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2501
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2502
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2503
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2504
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2513

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2516
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2517

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2521
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2522
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2523
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2534
Then, 2536
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2537
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2538

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2542
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2543
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2544
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2545
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2550
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2551
Forms 2553
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2554
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2558
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2559
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2560
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2561
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2563
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2564
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2565
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2566
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2568
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2569
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2570
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2571
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2574
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2576
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2580
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2581
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2583
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2587
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2588
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2589
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2590
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2596
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2598
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2600
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2606
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2608
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2610
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2612
in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 2613
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2614
SuperHyperTotal; 2615
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2616
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2618
SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2620
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2622
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2623
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2625
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the 2631
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2633
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2635
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the 2641
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2646
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2652
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2660


C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi- = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E12 , E13 , E14 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V12 , V13 , V14 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E6 , E7 , E8 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , Vii68=4,5,6 }.
i=1




4 × 3z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
2 × 4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+2i=011 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= |(|V | − 1)z 2 .


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2704
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2705
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2709
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2713
Then 2715
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2716
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2724
Then 2726
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2727
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2737
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

= {Ea ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
= {VaEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2740
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2745
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2746
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2749
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2758

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2761
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2762
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2763

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2766
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2767
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2779
Then, 2781
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2782
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2783

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2787
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2788
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2789
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2790
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2795
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2796
Forms 2798
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2799
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2803
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2804
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2805
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2806
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2808
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2809
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2810
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2811
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2813
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2814
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2815
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2816
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2819
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2821
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2822
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2823
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of 2824
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2826
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2827
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2830
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2831
high Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2832
SuperHyperConnected; 2834
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2835
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2836
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2838
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2843
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2845
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2846
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2848
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2853
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2855
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2858
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2859
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of 2860
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2862
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2863
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2866
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2867
high Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2868
SuperHyperConnected; 2870
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2871
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2872
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2873
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2874
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2879
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2880
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2881
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2882
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2884
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2889
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient. 2890
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2894
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2895
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2896
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2897
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2898
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme 2899
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2900
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2901
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2904
E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2905
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2906
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2907
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2909


C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E2 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Ei+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V12 , V13 , V14 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+119
i=11
, V22 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 20z 10 .

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E6 , E7 , E8 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 5z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , Vii68=4,5,6 }.
i=1
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 5 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E3 , E9 , E6 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .


C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V2 , V3 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .

4 × 3z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
2 × 4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+2i=011 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E3 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2973
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2974
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2978
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2982
Then 2984
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2985
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2988
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2993
Then 2995
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2996
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3006
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 3009
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3014
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3015
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3018
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 3019
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3027
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 3030
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3031

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3035
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3036
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3048
Then, 3050
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3051
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3052

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3056
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3057
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3058
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3059
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3065
17 Background 3066
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3067
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on March 09, 3068
2023. 3069
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3070
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3071
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3072
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3073
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3074
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3075
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3076
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3077
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3078
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3079
results based on initial background. 3080
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3081
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3082
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3083
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3084
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3085
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3086
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3087
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3088
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3089
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3090
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3091
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3092
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3093
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3094
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [87] by Henry Garrett 3095
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3096
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3097
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3098
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3099
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3100
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3101
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3102
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3103
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3104
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3105
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3106
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3107
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3108
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3109
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3110
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3111
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 3112
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3113
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3114
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3115
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3116
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3117
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 3118
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3119
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3120
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3121
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3122
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3123
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3124
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3125
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3126
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3127
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 3128
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3129
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3130
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 3131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 3132
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3133
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 3134
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3135
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3136
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3137
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 3138
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3139
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3140
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3141
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3142
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3143
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3144
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3145
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3146
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 3147
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3148
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 3149
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3150
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3151
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3152
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3153
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 3154
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3155
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [101] by Henry Garrett 3156
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3157
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3158
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [102] by Henry Garrett 3159
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3160
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3161
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [103] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3162
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3163
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [104] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3165
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3166
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [107] by 3167
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3168
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3169
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [108] by Henry 3170
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3171
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3172
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [111] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3173
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3174
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [114] by Henry 3175
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3176
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3177
in Ref. [115] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3178
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3179
Ref. [116] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3180
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3181
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [117] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3182
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3183
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [118] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3184
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3185
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3186
in Ref. [119] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3187
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3188
in Ref. [130] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3189
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3190
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3191
and [4–55, 57–131], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions 3192
about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 3193
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3194
proposed as book in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3195
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3196
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 3197
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 3198
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3199
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3200
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3201
proposed as book in Ref. [133] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3202
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3203
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 3204
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 3205
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 3206
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 3207
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3208
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3209
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3210
See the seminal scientific researches [1, 2]. The formalization of the notions on the 3211
framework of notions In SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions In 3212
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory 3213
at [4–55, 57–131]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3214
readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [132, 133]. 3215
– 3216
References 3217
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3218
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3219
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3220
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3221
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3222
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3223
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3224
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3225
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3226
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3227
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3228
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3229
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3230
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3231
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3232
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3233
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3234
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3235
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3236
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3237
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3238
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3239
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3240
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3241
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3242
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3243
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3244
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3245
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3246
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3247
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3248
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3249
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3250
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3251
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3252
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3253
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3254
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3255
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3256
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3257
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3258
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3259
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3260
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3261
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3262
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3263
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3264
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3265
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3266
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3267
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3268
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3269
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3270
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3271
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3272
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3273
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3274
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3275
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3276
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3277
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3278
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3280
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3281
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3282
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3283
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3284
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3285
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3287
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3291
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3292
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3293
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3294
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3295
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3296
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3297
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3298
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3299
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3300
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3301
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3302
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3303
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3304
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3305
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3306
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3307
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3308
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3309
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3310
24. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3311
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3312
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23525.68320). 3313
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3314
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3315
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3316
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3318
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3320
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3321
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29764.71046). 3322
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3324
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3325
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3326
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3327
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3330
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3332
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3334
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3336
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3337
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3339
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3341
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3343
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3345
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3346
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3347
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3348
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3349
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3351
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3352
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3353
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3354
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3357
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3359
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3360
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3363
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3364
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3365
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3366
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3369
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3371
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3373
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3375
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3376
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3377
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3378
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3381
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3382
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3383
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3384
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3387
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3388
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3389
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3390
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3393
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3394
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3395
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3396
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3399
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3400
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3401
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3402
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3405
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3406
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3407
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3408
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3410
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3411
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3413
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3414
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3417
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3418
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3419
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3420
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3423
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3424
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3425
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3426
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3429
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3431
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3432
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3435
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3436
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3437
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3438
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3440
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3441
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3444
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3445
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3447
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3449
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3450
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3452
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3453
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3455
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3456
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3457
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3458
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3459
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3460
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3461
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3462
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3464
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3465
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3466
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3467
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3468
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3469
77. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3470
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3471
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3472
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3473
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3476
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3477
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3480
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3481
80. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3482
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3484
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3485
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3488
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3489
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3492
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3493
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3494
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3495
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3496
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3497
84. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3498
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3499
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3500
85. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3501
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3502
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3503
86. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3504
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3505
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3506
87. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3507
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3508
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3509
(2023) 35-47. 3510
88. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3511
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3512
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3513
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3514
89. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3515
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3516
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3517
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3518
90. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3519
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3520
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3521
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3522
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3523
91. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3524
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3525
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3526
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3527
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3528
92. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3529
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3530
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3531
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3532
93. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3533
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3534
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3535
94. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3536
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3537
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3539
95. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3540
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3541
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3542
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3543
96. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3544
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3545
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3546
97. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3547
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3548
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3549
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3550
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3551
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3552
98. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3553
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3554
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3555
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3556
99. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3557
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3558
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3559
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3560
100. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3561
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3562
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3563
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3564
101. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3565
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3566
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3567
102. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3568
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3569
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3570
103. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3572
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3573
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3574
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3575
104. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3576
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3577
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3578
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3579
105. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3580
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3581
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3582
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3583
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3585
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3586
107. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3587
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3588
108. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3590
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3591
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3592
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3597
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3601
111. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3602
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3603
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3604
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3605
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3608
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3610
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3611
114. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3612
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3613
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3616
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3617
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3619
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3620
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3623
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3624
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3626
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3627
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3630
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3631
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3633
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3634
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3636
122. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3638
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3641
123. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3643
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3646
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3653
126. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3654
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3655
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3656
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3657
127. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3658
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3659
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3660
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3661
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3664
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3665
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3668
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3669
130. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3670
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3671
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3672
131. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3673
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3674
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3675
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3676
132. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3677
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3678
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3679
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3680
133. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3681
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3682
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3683
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3684
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Stale by Hyper Stalk of Stable-Decompositions in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Stale by Hyper Stalk of Stable-Decompositions in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Decompositions In Cancer's

Preprint · March 2023

371 PUBLICATIONS 6,267 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 2

Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10

S is a Stable-Decompositions pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11

V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 14

∀Ea0 , Eb0 : Ea0 andEb0 are Stable;

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 16

∀Ea0 , Eb0 : Ea0 andEb0 are Stable;

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 19

∀Va0 , Vb0 : Va0 andVb0 are Stable;

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 21

∀Va0 , Vb0 : Va0 andVb0 are Stable;

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 28

S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 30

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 31

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 33

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 34

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 35

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36

conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 39

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 40

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 42

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 44

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45

Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 48

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 52

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 53

N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 54

Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 56

conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 57

power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 59

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 60

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 63

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 64

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 65

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 66

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 67