New Ideas On Super Nebulous by Hyper Nebbish of Trace-Neighbor in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369588536
New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of Trace-Neighbor In

Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · March 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7779286
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
402 PUBLICATIONS 8,168 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Fuzzy Logic View project
Featured Articles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 28 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 Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 2
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer 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
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Trace-Decomposition 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-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 14
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has all SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 16
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 19
∀N (Va ) ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has all SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 21
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 24
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 25
rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition). 26
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 27
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 28
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29
rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 36
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37
rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 45
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 46
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 47
v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 48
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 50
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 51
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 52
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 53
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; and the Extreme power 54
is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 55
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 56
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 60
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 61
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 62
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 63
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 64
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 65
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 66
V-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 67
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 71
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive 72
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 73
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 74
V-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 79
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 80
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; an Extreme V-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 83
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 84
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 85
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 88
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 89
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 90
cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 91
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 92
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 94
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 98
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 99
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 100
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 101
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 103
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 104
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 105
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Two different types of 106
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 107
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 108
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 109
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 110
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 111
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 112
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 113
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 114
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 115
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 116
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 117
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 118
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 119
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 120
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 121
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 122
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 123
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 124
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 125
δ−SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 126
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 127
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 128
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 129
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 130
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 131
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 132
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 133
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 134
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 135
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 136
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 137
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 138
version of a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 139
type-results to make a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition more understandable. For the 140
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, there’s a need to 141
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices 142
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 143
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 144
Assume a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 145
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The 146
Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to 147
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The 148
Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The 149
SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 150
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 151
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of 152
Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the 153
next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 154
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 155
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 156
have all SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition until the SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 157
then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 158
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition . There are some instances about the clarifications for 159
the main definition titled a “SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition ”. These two examples 160
get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways 161
of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition . For the sake of 162
having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” 163
the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 165
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 166
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 167
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 168
Table holds. And a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 170
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 171
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 172
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 174
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 175
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic 177
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 178
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 179
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” 180
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the 181
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition amid the maximum value amid all 182
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition .] 183
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 184
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 185
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 186
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 187
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s only 188
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar 189
it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 190
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 191
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 192
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 193
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 194
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 195
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 196
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 197
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 198
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 199
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 200
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 201
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 202
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 203
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 204
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 205
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 206
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 207
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 208
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 209
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 210
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 211
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 212
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 213
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 214
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 215
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 216
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 217
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 218
either the longest SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition or the strongest 219
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 220
longest SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, called SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and 221
the strongest SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 222
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 223
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 224
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 225
of a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 226
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 227
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 228
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition theory, 229
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 230
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 231
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 232
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 233
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 234
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 235
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 236
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 237
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 238
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 239
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 240
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 241
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 242
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 243
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 244
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 245
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 246
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 247
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 248
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 249
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 250
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 251
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 252
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 253
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 254
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 255
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 256
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 257
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 258
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 259
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 260
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 261
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 262
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 263
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 264
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 265
formally called “ SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 266
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 267
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 268
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 269
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 270
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 271
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 272
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 273
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 274
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 275
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 276
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 277
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 278
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 279
either the optimal SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition or the Extreme 280
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general 281
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 282
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 283
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 284
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 285
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 286
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 287
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 288
find the “ amount of SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or 289
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 290
“amount of SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 291
fixed groups of group of cells? 292
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 293
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 294
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 295
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 296
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” and “Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” on 297
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 298
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 299
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 300
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 301
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 302
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 303
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 304
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 305
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 306
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 307
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 308
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 309
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 310
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, are 311
figured out in sections “ SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” and “Extreme 312
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 313
Trace-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 314
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 315
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 316
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 317
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 318
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 319
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 320
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 321
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 322
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 323
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 324
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 325
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition”, “Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition”, 326
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There 327
are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense 328
about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 329
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ 330
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 331
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 332
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 333
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 334
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 335
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 336
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 337
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 338
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 339
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 340
Research On the Redeemed Ways 341
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 342
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [151],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 343
Set](Ref. [151],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 344
(NSHG)](Ref. [151],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [151],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [151], 346
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 347
(NSHG)](Ref. [151],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 348
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [151],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 349
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [151],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 350
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [151]. 351
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 352
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 353
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [151],Definition 2.1,p.1). 354
Let X be a Trace-Decomposition 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 355
+
]− 0, 1 [. 356
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [151],Definition 2.2,p.2). 357
Let X be a Trace-Decomposition 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. [151],Definition 358
2.5,p.2). 359
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 360
pair S = (V, E), where 361
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 362
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 363
1, 2, . . . , n); 364
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 365
V; 366
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 367
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 368
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 369
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 370
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 371
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 372
(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 . 373
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 375
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 376
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 377
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 378
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 379
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 380
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 381
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 382
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 383
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 384
(Ref. [151],Definition 2.7,p.3). 385
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 386
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 387
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 388
characterized as follow-up items. 389
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 390
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 391
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 392
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 393
HyperEdge; 394
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 395
SuperEdge; 396
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 397
SuperHyperEdge. 398
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 399
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 400
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [151], Definition 2.7, p.3). 401
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 402
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 403
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 404
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 405
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 406
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 407
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)). 408
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 409
pair S = (V, E), where 410
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 411
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 412
1, 2, . . . , n); 413
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 414
V; 415
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 416
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 417
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 418
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 419
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 420
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 421
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 423
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 424
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 426
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 427
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 428
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 429
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 430
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 431
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 432
(Ref. [151],Definition 2.7,p.3). 433
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 434
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 435
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 436
characterized as follow-up items. 437
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 438
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 439
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 440
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 441
HyperEdge; 442
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 443
SuperEdge; 444
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 445
SuperHyperEdge. 446
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 447
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 448
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 449
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 450
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 451
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 452
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 453
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 454
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 455
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 456
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 457
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 458
given SuperHyperEdges; 459
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 460
SuperHyperEdges; 461
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 462
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 463
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 464
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 465
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 466
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 467
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 468
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 469
common SuperVertex. 470
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 471
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 472
of following conditions hold: 473
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 480
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 481
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 482
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 483
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 484
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. 485
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 486
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 487
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 488
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 489
SuperHyperPath . 490
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 491
(Ref. [151],Definition 5.3,p.7). 492
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 493
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 494
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 495
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 496
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 497
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 498
(NSHE)). (Ref. [151],Definition 5.4,p.7). 499
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 500
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 501
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 502
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 503
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 504
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 505
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 506
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 508
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 509
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 511
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 512
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 513
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 514
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 515
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition). 516
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 518
either V 0 or E 0 is called 519
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following 520
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 521
criteria holds 522
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following 523
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 524
criteria holds 525
526
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 527
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following 528
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 529
criteria holds 530
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition f the following 531
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 532
criteria holds 533
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 534
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of 535
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 536
re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 537
rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 539
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition). 540
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 542
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 543
e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 544
rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 547
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 548
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 549
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 550
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 551
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 552
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of 553
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 558
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 559
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 562
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial 563
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 564
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 568
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 569
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 570
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 571
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 573
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 574
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 575
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 576
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 581
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 582
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 583
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 584
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 585
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; and the 586
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 587
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of 588
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 593
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 594
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 595
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 597
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of 598
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 603
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 604
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 608
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 614
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 615
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 616
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 617
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 619
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 620
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 621
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
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 627
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 628
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 629
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 630
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 631
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; and the 632
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 633
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition). 634
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 635
(i) an δ−SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of 636
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition such that either of the following 637
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 638
s∈S: 639
|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 640
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 641
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic 642
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition such that either of the 643
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 644
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 645
|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. 646
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 647
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 648
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, there’s a 649
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 650
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 651
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 652
assign to the values. 653
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 654
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 655
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 656
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 657
understandable. 658

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 659
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 660
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 661
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 662
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 663
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 664
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 665
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 666
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 667
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 668
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly understandable. 669
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, there’s a 670
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 671
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 672
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 673
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 674
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 675
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 676
4 Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition But 677
As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 678
Super Forms 679
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 680
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 681
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 682
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 683
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 684
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 685
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 687
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 688
s-independent criteria 689
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. 690
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 691
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 692
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Any k-function Trace-Decomposition 694
like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 695
Trace-Decomposition like E is called Extreme Variable. 696
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 697
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 698
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 700
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 701
Expectation criteria 702
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 703
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. an Extreme number is called 705
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 706
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 707
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let m and n propose special 708
Trace-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 709
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 710
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 711
independently with probability Trace-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 712
H := G[S]. 713
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: 714
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
715
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 716
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of 717
n points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane 718
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 719
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 720
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 721
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 722
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 723
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 724
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 725
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 726
Theorem 4.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 727
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of 728
n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 729
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 730
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 731
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 732
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 733

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 734
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
735
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 736
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 737
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 738
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 739
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 740
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 741
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 742
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 743
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 744
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 745
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 746
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let X be a 747
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 748
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. 749
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 750
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 751
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Trace-Decomposition 752
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 753
Proof. 754
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 755
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. A special 756
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 757
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 759
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 760
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 761
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 762
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 763
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 764
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 765
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 766
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 767
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: 768
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 769
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 770
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 771
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 772
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 773
number at most k. 774
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 775
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 777
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 778
Variance criteria 779
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let X be an 781
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 782
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let 784
t be a positive real number. Then 785
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
786
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let Xn be an 788
Extreme Variable in a probability Trace-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 789
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 790
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 792
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 793
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 794
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 796
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 797
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 798
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 799
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. As in the proof of related Theorem, 801
the result is straightforward. 802
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 804
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 805
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 806
or 807
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 808
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 810
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 811
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 813
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 814
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 815
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 816
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 817
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 818
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Extreme 820
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 821
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 822
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. Let F be a 824
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 825
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 826
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 827
S = (V, E) is a probability Trace-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 829
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 830
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 831
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 832
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 833
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 834
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 835
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 836
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 837
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 838
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 839
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 840
C(N SHG)Extreme Trace-Decomposition

= {}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Trace-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Trace-Decomposition
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Trace-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
841
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 844
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 845
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 846
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 847
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 848
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 849
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.3)
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 850

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z 5 + z 3 + z.
851
straightforward. 854

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
855




= {E4 , E5 }.
= 2z 5 .
= {V3 }.
= z2.
859

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {{}}.
= z0.
863


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {{}}.
= z0.
867

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {{}}.
= z0.
871




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {{}}.
= z0.
875

= {E23 }.
= z 11 .
= {{Vi }22
i=11,i6=21 .
= 2z 5 + 7z 4 + 2z 3 .
879


= {E5 }.
= z3.
= {V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= 2z 5 + z 3 .
883

= {E1 }.
= z5 + z4 + z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }.
= 3z 5 + z 4 + 2z 3 .



887

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
891

= {E1 }.
= z5 + z4 + z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }.
= 3z 5 + z 4 + 2z 3 .

895

= {E1 , E2 }.
= 2z 2 .
= {V1 }.
= z5.
899

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .


903

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
907

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
911




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
915

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .

919

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
923

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {VE2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.

927

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
931
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 932
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 933
quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 934
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 935
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 936
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 937
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 938
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 939
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 940
any given Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 941
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 942


SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 943
an Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 944
some of them but not all of them. 945
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition 946
is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 947
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 948
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 949
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 950
Trace-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 951
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 952
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme 953
R-Trace-Decomposition. 954
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Trace-Decomposition 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 an Extreme type-result-R-Trace-Decomposition with the least Extreme 955
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 956
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 957
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 958
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−T race−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Trace-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the 959
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Trace-Decomposition is 960
the cardinality of 961
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−T race−DecompositionSuperHyperP 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-Trace-Decomposition 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 an 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-Trace-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition 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-Trace-Decomposition.
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 962
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 963
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 964
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 965
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 966
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 967
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 968
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 969
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition 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-Trace-Decomposition. 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 an Extreme
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least
an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition has the Extreme
cardinality at least an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition
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 an Extreme contradiction with the term
“Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition” 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-Trace-Decomposition 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 an Extreme SuperHyperClass of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph has
no on-quasi-triangle Extreme style amid some amount of its Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an 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 an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 970
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 971
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 972
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 973
Assume an 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 an Extreme
R-Trace-Decomposition. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in
an Extreme style-R-Trace-Decomposition. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an 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-Trace-Decomposition is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition 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-Trace-Decomposition. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 974
Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
975
Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Trace-Decomposition, 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 an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Trace-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 976
R-Trace-Decomposition is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 977
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 978
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 979
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 980
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Trace-Decomposition in some cases but 981
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 982
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 983
contained in an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition. 984
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 985
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 986
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 987
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 988
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 989
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 990
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 991
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 992
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 993
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 994
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition 995
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 996
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Trace-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of 997
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 998
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 999
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1000
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1001
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 1002
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 1003
Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition. The interior types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1004
are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 1005
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and 1006
more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any 1007
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition. 1008
Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme 1009
SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme 1010
SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme 1011
Trace-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since 1012
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1013
relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 1014
inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1015
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1016
implying the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition. The Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition 1017
with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme 1018
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition with the 1019
inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 1020
Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1021
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1022
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1023
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition minus all 1024
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1025
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1026
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition, 1027
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1028
The main definition of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition has two titles. an 1029
Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1030
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1031
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition with that quasi-maximum 1032
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1033
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1034
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1035
quasi-R-Trace-Decompositions for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1036
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Trace-Decomposition ends 1037
up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition, 1038
again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme 1039
quasi-R-Trace-Decompositions acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme 1040
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 1041
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1042
quasi-R-Trace-Decompositions. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1043
GExtreme Trace-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an 1044
Extreme Trace-Decomposition. Then 1045
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Trace-Decomposition ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Trace-Decomposition is 1046
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1047
GExtreme Trace-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1048
technical definition for the Extreme Trace-Decomposition. 1049
GExtreme Trace-Decomposition =
{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 1050
Trace-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1051
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1052
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1053

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1054


1055
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1056

1057

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1058
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1059
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1060
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1061
Quasi-Trace-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1062
Quasi-Trace-Decomposition” since “Extreme Quasi-Trace-Decomposition” happens 1063
“Extreme Trace-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1064
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1065
Trace-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1066
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1067
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1068
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Trace-Decomposition”, and “Extreme 1069
Trace-Decomposition” are up. 1070
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1071
GExtreme Trace-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1072
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Trace-Decomposition and the new terms are 1073
up. 1074

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1075
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1076
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1077
And with go back to initial structure, 1078


1079
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1080

1081

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1082
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition if for 1083
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1084
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1085
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1086
them. 1087
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1088
are coming up. 1089
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,

Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition. The

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1090
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1091
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some
Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by Extreme Trace-Decomposition
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 Trace-Decomposition is up. The
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Trace-Decomposition is
an 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-Trace-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

R-Trace-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1092
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1093
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1094
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1095
Trace-Decomposition and it’s an Extreme Trace-Decomposition. Since it’s 1096
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Trace-Decomposition. There isn’t only less
than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Trace-Decomposition, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1097
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1098
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1099
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1100
“Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition” 1101
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1102
Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition, 1103
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Trace-Decomposition, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1104
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1105
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1106
quasi-R-Trace-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1107
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1108
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1109
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1110
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1111
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1112
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1113
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1114
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1115
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition with the 1116
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1117
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1118
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1119
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1120
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme 1121
R-Trace-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1122
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1123
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1124
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1125
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1126
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1127
R-Trace-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such 1128
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1129
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1130
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1131
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1132
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1133
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1134
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1135
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Trace-Decomposition, VESHE 1136
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1137
R-Trace-Decomposition, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 1138
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1139
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1140
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1141
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1142
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1143
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1144
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1145
R-Trace-Decomposition only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1146
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1147
there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1148
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1149
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1150
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1151
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Trace-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither empty 1152
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1153
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1154
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Trace-Decomposition. The Extreme SuperHyperSet 1155
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1156
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−Decomposition

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−T race−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−T race−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−T race−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Trace-Decomposition. The 1157
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1158

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Trace-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1159
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1160
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1162
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1163
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1164
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1165
non-obvious Extreme Trace-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1166
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Trace-Decomposition is an Extreme 1167
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1168
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1169

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1170
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1171
Extreme Trace-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1172
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1173

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1174
Trace-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1175
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1176

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Trace-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1177
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1178
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1179
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Trace-Decomposition 1180
and it’s an Extreme Trace-Decomposition. Since it’s 1181
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1183
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1184
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1185
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1186

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Trace-Decomposition, 1187

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1188
Trace-Decomposition, not: 1189

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1190

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1191
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1192
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1193
“Extreme Trace-Decomposition” 1194
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1195
Extreme Trace-Decomposition, 1196
is only and only 1197

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1198
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1199
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1200
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1201
SuperHyperClasses. 1202
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1203

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1204
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1205
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). 1206
There’s a new way to redefine as 1207
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 .
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )| ≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 1208
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1209
The latter is straightforward. 1210
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1211
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1212
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1213
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1214
Then 1215

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.7)
1217
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). 1218

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1223
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1224
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1225
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1226

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1227
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1228
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1229
a new way to redefine as 1230

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1234
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1235
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1236
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1237
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1238
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1239
Then 1240

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1241
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
1242
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). 1243

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1247
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1248
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition could be applied. There 1249
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in the Example (16.11)
are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1250
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1251
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition taken from a connected Extreme 1252
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1253
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1254
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1256
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1257
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1258
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1259
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1260
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1261
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1262
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1263

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1264
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
1265
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 1267

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1270
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1271
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition could be applied. There 1272
are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1273
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1275
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1276
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1279
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1280
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1281
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1282
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1283
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1284
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1286
Then, 1287

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1288
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1289
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1291

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1294
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1295
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition could be applied. The 1296
unique embedded SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition proposes some longest 1297
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1298
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1300
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1301
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1302
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1303
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1304
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1305
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1306
For the SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 1307
and the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1308
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is 1309
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1310
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Then 1311
Extreme SuperHyperT race − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperT race − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperT race − Decomposition
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperT race−Decomposition. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1312
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1313
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1314
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1315
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and 1316
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition coincide. 1317
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1319
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if and only if it’s a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1320
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1322
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1323
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1325
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 1326
is its SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and reversely. 1327
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme 1328
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1329
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1330
letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is its 1331
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and reversely. 1332
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1333
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1334
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1335
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1336
Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1337
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1341
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1342
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1344
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1345
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is well-defined. 1346
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1347
its Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1348
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1352
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1353
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1355
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1356
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1357
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1358
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1359
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1360
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1361
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1362
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1363
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1364
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1365
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1366
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1367
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1368
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1369
independent SuperHyperSet is 1370
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1371
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1372
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1373
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1374
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1375
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1376
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1377
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1378
is a maximal 1379
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1380
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1381
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1382
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1383
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1384
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1385
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1386
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1387
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1388
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1389
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1390
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1391
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1392
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1393
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1394
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1395
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1397
the number of 1398
(i) : the SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1399
(ii) : the SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1400
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1401
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1402
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1403
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1404
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1405
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1406
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1408
(i) : the dual SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1409
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1410
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1411
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1412
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1413
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1414
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1415
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1418
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1419
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1420
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1421
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1425
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1426
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1427
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1431
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1432
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1433
is a 1434
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1438
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1439
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1440
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1443
number of 1444
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1448
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1449
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1450
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1452
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1453
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1454
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1456
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1457
(iv) : SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1461
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1462
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1463
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1464
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1465
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1466
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1467
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1468
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1472
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1474
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1476
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1477
setting of dual 1478
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1482
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1483
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1484
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1486
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1488
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1489
dual 1490
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1494
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1495
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1496
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1499
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1500
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1501
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1507
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1509
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1510
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1511
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1512
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1513
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1514
such that 1515
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1516
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1517
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1518
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, then 1519
(i) S is SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition set; 1520
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1521
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1522
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1523
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1524
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1525
connected. Then 1526
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1527
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1528
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1529
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1530
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1532
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1533
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1534
a dual SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1535
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1536
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1537
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1539
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1540
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1541
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1542
dual SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1543
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1544
Then 1545
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1546
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1548
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1549
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1550
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1551
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1553
Then 1554
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1555
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1557
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1558
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1559
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1561
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1562
(ii) Γ = 1; 1563
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1564
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1565
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1567
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1568
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1569
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1570
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1571
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1572
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1573
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1574
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1575
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1577
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1578
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1579
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1581
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1582
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1584

bnc ; 1585
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1586
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1588
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1589
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1590
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition for N SHF; 1591
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1592
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1593
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1594
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1595
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1596
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1597
SuperHyperSet. Then 1598
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1599
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition for N SHF; 1600
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1601

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1602
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1603
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1605
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1606
SuperHyperSet. Then 1607
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1608
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1609
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1610

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1611
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1612
following statements hold; 1615
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1616
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, then S is an 1617
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1618
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1619
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1620
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1621
following statements hold; 1623
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1624
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, then S is an 1625
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1626
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1627
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1628
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1629
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1630
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1631
hold; 1632
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1633
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1634
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1635
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1637
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1639
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1640
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1641
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1642
hold; 1643
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1644
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1646
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1648
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1650
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1651
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1653
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1654
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1655
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1657
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1659
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1662
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1664
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1665
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1666
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1668
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1670
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; 1671
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1673
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1675
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1676
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1677
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1679
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1681
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1684
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1686
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1687
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1688
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1690
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1692
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1695
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1696
Recognition 1697
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1698
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1699
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1700
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1701
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1702
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1703
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1704
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1705
long-term Extreme function. 1706
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1707
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1708
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1709
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1710
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1711
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1712
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1713
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1714
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1715
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1716
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1717
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1719
find either the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition or the Extreme 1720
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1721
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1722
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1723
SuperHyperModel 1724
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1725
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1726
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1727
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1728
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1729
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1730
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1731
the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1732
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1733
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1734
SuperHyperModel 1735
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1736
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1737
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1738
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1739
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1740
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1742
is the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1743
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1744
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1745
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1746
The SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and the Extreme 1747
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled 1748
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1749
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1750
recognitions? 1751
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1752
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition? 1753
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1754
compute them? 1755
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1756
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition? 1757
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and the Extreme 1758
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1759
and they’re based on SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, are there else? 1760
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1761
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1762
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1763
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1764
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1765
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1766
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1767
highlighted. 1768
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1769
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1770
SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1771
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1772
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1773
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1774
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1775
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1776
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1777
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1778
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1779
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1780
the SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. 1781
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1782
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1783
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1784
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1785
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1786
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1787
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1788
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1789
formally called “ SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 1790
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 1791
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition
3. Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1792
avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1793
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1794
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1795
Forms 1796
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1797
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1798
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1799
V 0 or E 0 is called 1800
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1801
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1802
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1803
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1804
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1805
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1806
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1807
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1808
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1809
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1810
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1811
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1812
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1813
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1814
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1816
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1817
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1818
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1819
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1820
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1821
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1822
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1824
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1825
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1826
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1827
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1828
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1829
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1830
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1831
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1832
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1833
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1835
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1836
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1837
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1838
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1839
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1840
Extreme coefficient; 1841
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1842
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1852
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1859
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1860
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1864
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1865
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1866
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1867
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1868
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1872
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1873
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1877
Extreme coefficient. 1886
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1890
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1891
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1892
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1893
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1894
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1896
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 an Extreme 1899
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1900
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1901
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1902
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1903
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1904


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). 1947
Then 1948
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 1949
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 1953
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1957
Then 1959
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 1960
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1968
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1969
Then 1970
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 1971
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1981
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1982
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1983
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 1984
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 1989
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1990
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1991
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1993
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1994
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2002

= {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 2005
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 2006

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2012
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), 2022
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2023
Then, 2025
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 2026
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 2027
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2028

∃!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 2033
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2034
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2036
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2037
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2039
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2040
Forms 2042
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2043
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2047
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2048
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2049
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2050
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2052
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2053
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2054
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2055
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2057
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2058
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2059
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2062
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2063
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2064
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2065
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2066
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2067
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2068
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2069
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2071
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2075
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2076
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2077
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2078
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2084
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2086
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2096
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2100
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2101
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2102
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2103
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2107
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2109
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2110
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2120
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2133
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2134
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2139
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. 2141
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2147


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 2191
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 2192
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2196
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2200
Then 2202

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

.
Proof. Let 2203
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2211
Then 2213
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 2214

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2224
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 2227
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 2232
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2233
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2234
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2236
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2245

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 2248
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2249
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2250

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
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2255
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. 2266
Then, 2268

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

.
Proof. Let 2269
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2270

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2274
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2275
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2276
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2277
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2282
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2283
Forms 2285
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2286
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2290
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2291
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2292
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2293
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2295
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2296
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2297
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2298
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2300
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2301
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2302
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2303
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2306
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2308
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2312
SuperHyperPerfect; 2313
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2314
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2316
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2320
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2321
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2322
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2323
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2329
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2331
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2341
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2342
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2348
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2349
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2350
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2353
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2354
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2355
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2356
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2357
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2366
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2379
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2385
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.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2393


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 2437
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 2438
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2442
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2446
Then 2448
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 2449
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2457
Then 2459
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2460

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2470
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 2473
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 2478
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2479
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2480
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2481
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2482
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2491

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 2494
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2495

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2499
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2500
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2501
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. 2512
Then, 2514
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2515
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2516

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2520
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2521
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2522
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2523
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2528
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2529
Forms 2531
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2532
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2536
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2537
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2538
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2539
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2541
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2542
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2543
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2544
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2546
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2547
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2548
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2549
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2552
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2554
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2558
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2559
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2561
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2565
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2566
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2567
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2568
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2574
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2576
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2586
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2590
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2591
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2592
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2593
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2597
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2599
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2600
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2610
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2623
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2629
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.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2637


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 2681
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 2682
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2686
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2690
Then 2692
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 2693
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. 2701
Then 2703
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 2704
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2714
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 2717
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2722
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2723
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2726
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2735

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 2738
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2739
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2740

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2743
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2744
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. 2756
Then, 2758
∗
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 2759
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2760

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2764
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2765
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2766
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2767
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2772
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2773
Forms 2775
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2776
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2780
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2781
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2782
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2783
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2785
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2786
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2787
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2788
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2790
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2791
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2792
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2793
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2796
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2798
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2799
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2800
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2801
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2803
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2804
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2807
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2808
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2809
SuperHyperConnected; 2811
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2812
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2813
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2815
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2820
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2822
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2823
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2832
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2836
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2837
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2839
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2840
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2844
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2845
SuperHyperConnected; 2847
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2848
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2849
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2850
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2851
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2858
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2859
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2871
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2872
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2873
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2874
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2875
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2876
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2877
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2878
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 2881
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2882
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2883
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2884
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2886


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 2950
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 2951
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 2955
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2959
Then 2961
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 2962
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 2965
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2970
Then 2972
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 2973
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2983
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 2986
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2991
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2992
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2995
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2996
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3004
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 3007
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3008

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3012
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3013
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. 3025
Then, 3027
∗
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 3028
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3029

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3033
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3034
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3035
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3036
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3042
17 Background 3043
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3044
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3045
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3046
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3047
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3048
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3049
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3050
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3051
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3052
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3053
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3054
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3055
results based on initial background. 3056
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3057
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3058
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3059
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3060
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3061
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3062
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3063
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3064
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3065
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3066
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3067
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3068
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3069
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3070
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3071
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3072
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3073
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3074
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3075
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3076
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3077
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3078
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3079
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3080
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3081
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3082
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3083
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3084
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3085
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3086
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3087
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3088
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3089
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3090
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3091
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3092
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3093
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3094
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3095
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3096
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3097
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3098
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3099
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3100
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3101
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3102
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3103
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3104
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3105
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3106
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3107
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3108
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3109
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3110
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3111
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3112
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3113
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3114
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3115
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3116
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3117
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3118
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3119
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3120
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3121
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3122
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3123
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3124
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3125
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3126
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3127
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3128
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3129
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3130
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3131
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3132
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [121] by Henry Garrett 3133
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3134
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3135
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [122] by Henry Garrett 3136
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3137
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3138
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [123] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3139
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3140
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [124] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3142
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [127] by 3144
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3145
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3146
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [128] by Henry 3147
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3148
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3149
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3150
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3151
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [134] by Henry 3152
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3153
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3154
in Ref. [135] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3155
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3156
Ref. [136] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3157
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3158
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [137] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3159
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3160
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [138] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3161
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 3162
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [139] by Henry 3163
Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [150] by Henry 3165
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3166
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3167
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [151] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–24, 26–151], 3168
there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3169
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3170
at [25, 94, 152, 154–240]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of 3171
high readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [241, 242]. 3172
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3173
proposed as book in Ref. [229] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3174
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3175
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3176
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3177
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3178
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3179
proposed as book in Ref. [230] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3180
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3181
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3182
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3183
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3184
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3185
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3186
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3187
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3188
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3189
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–151] 3190
alongside scientific research books at [152–240]. Two popular scientific research books 3191
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3192
science is on [241, 242]. 3193
References 3194
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3195
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3196
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3197
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3198
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3199
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3200
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3201
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3202
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3203
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3204
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3205
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3206
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3207
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3208
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3209
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3210
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3211
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3212
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3213
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3214
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3215
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3216
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3217
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3218
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3219
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3220
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3221
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3222
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3223
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3224
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3225
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3226
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3227
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3228
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3229
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3230
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3231
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3232
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3233
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3234
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3235
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3236
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3237
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3238
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3239
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3240
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3241
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3242
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3243
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3244
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3245
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3246
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3247
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3248
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3249
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3250
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3251
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3252
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3253
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3254
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3255
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3256
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3257
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3258
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3259
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3260
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3261
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3263
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3264
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3265
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3266
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3267
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3268
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3270
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3274
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3275
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3276
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3277
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3278
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3279
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3280
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3281
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3282
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3283
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3284
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3285
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3286
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3287
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3288
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3289
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3291
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3292
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3293
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3294
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3295
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3296
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3297
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3298
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3299
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3300
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3301
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7772468). 3302
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3304
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3305
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3306
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3307
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3308
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3310
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3312
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3313
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3314
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3316
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3317
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3319
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3322
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3324
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3325
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3326
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3328
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3330
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3331
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3334
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3335
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3337
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3340
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3342
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3344
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3346
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3348
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3349
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3352
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3354
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3355
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3358
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3360
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3362
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3364
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3366
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3367
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3370
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3371
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3373
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3376
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3378
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3380
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3382
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3383
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3385
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3387
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3389
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3391
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3392
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3393
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3394
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3395
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3397
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3398
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3399
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3400
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3403
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3405
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3406
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3409
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3410
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3411
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3412
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3415
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3417
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3419
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3421
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3422
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3423
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3424
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3427
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3428
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3429
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3430
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3433
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3434
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3435
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3436
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3439
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3440
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3441
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3442
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3445
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3446
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3447
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3448
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3451
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3452
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3453
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3454
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3456
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3457
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3460
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3461
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3462
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3463
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3466
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3467
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3468
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3469
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3472
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3474
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3475
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3478
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3479
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3480
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3481
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3483
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3484
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3487
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3488
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3490
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3492
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3493
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3495
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3496
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3498
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3499
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3500
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3501
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3502
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3503
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3504
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3505
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3507
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3508
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3509
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3510
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3511
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3512
98. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3513
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3514
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3515
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3516
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3519
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3520
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3523
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3524
101. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3525
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3527
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3528
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3531
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3532
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3535
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3536
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3537
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3538
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3539
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3540
105. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3541
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3542
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3543
106. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3544
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3545
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3546
107. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3547
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3548
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3549
108. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3550
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3551
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3552
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3553
109. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3554
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3555
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3556
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3557
110. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3558
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3559
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3560
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3561
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3562
111. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3563
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3564
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3565
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3566
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3567
112. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3568
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3569
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3570
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3571
113. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3572
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3573
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3574
114. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3575
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3576
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3578
115. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3579
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3580
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3581
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3582
116. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3583
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3584
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3585
117. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3586
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3587
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3588
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3589
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3590
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3591
118. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3592
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3593
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3594
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3595
119. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3596
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3597
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3598
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3599
120. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3600
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3601
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3602
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3603
121. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3604
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3605
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3606
122. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3607
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3608
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3609
123. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3611
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3612
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3613
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3614
124. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3615
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3616
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3617
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3618
125. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3619
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3620
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3621
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3622
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3624
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3625
127. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3626
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3627
128. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3629
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3630
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3631
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3636
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3640
131. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3641
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3642
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3643
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3644
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3647
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3649
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3650
134. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3651
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3655
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3656
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3658
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3659
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3662
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3663
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3665
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3666
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3669
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3670
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3672
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3673
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3675
142. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3677
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3680
143. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3682
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3685
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3692
146. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3693
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3694
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3695
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3696
147. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3697
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3698
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3699
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3700
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3703
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3704
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3707
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3708
150. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3709
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3710
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3711
151. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3712
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3713
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3714
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3715
152. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3716
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7773119). 3717
153. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3718
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3719
154. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3720
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3721
155. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3722
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3723
156. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3724
157. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3726
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3727
158. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3728
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3729
159. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3730
160. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3732
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3733
161. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3734
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3735
162. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3736
163. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3738
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3739
164. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3740
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3741
165. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3742
166. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3744
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3745
167. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3746
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3747
168. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3748
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3749
169. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3750
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3751
170. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3752
171. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3754
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3755
172. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3756
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3757
173. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3758
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3759
174. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3760
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3761
175. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3762
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3763
176. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3764
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3765
177. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3766
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3767
178. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3768
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3769
179. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3770
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3771
180. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3772
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3773
181. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3774
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3775
182. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3776
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3777
183. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3778
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3779
184. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3780
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3781
185. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3782
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3783
186. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3784
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3785
187. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3786
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3787
188. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3788
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3789
189. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3790
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3791
190. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3792
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3793
191. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3794
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3795
192. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3796
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3797
193. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3798
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3799
194. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3800
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3801
195. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3802
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3803
196. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3804
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3805
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3806
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3807
198. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3808
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3809
199. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3810
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3811
200. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3812
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3813
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3814
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3815
202. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3816
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3817
203. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3818
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3819
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3820
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3821
205. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3822
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3823
206. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3824
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3825
207. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3826
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3827
208. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3828
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3829
209. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3830
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3831
210. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3832
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3833
211. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3834
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3835
212. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3836
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3837
213. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3838
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3839
214. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3840
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3841
215. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3842
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3843
216. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3844
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3845
217. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3846
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3847
218. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3848
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3849
219. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3850
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3851
220. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3852
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3853
221. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3854
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3855
222. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3856
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3857
223. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3858
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3859
224. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3860
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3861
225. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3862
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3863
226. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3864
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3865
227. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3866
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3867
228. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3868
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3869
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3870
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3871
230. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3872
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3873
231. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3874
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3875
232. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3876
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3877
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3878
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3879
234. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3880
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3881
235. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3882
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3883
236. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3884
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3885
237. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3886
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3887
238. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3888
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3889
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3890
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3891
240. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3892
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3893
241. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3894
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3895
242. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3896
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3897
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Nebulous by Hyper Nebbish of Trace-Neighbor in Recognition of Cancer 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 Nebulous by Hyper Nebbish of Trace-Neighbor in Recognition of Cancer 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 Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of Trace-Neighbor In

Preprint · March 2023

402 PUBLICATIONS 8,168 CITATIONS

On Fuzzy Logic View project

Featured Articles View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 2

Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer 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

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10

S is a Trace-Decomposition 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-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 14

∀N (Ea ) ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has all SuperHyperVertices;

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 16

∀N (Ea ) ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has all SuperHyperVertices;

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

v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 19

∀N (Va ) ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has all SuperHyperVertices;

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition criteria holds 21

∀N (Va ) ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has all SuperHyperVertices;

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

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 24

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 25

rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition). 26

Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 27

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 28

Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29

e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 30

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 31

rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 36

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37

e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 38

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 39

rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 41

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition 45

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 46

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 47

v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 48

rv-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 49

N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 50

Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 52

conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 53

is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 55

SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 56

e-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, 57

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTrace-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 58