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

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.
com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 2
Hamiltonian-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
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 10
a Hamiltonian-Cut 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-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 14
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 16
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 19
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 21
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 24
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 25
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 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 SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 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 SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; a Neutrosophic 36
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 40
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 41
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 42
conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 44
an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 45
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 46
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and 47
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 48
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 49
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 50
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 51
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 52
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and 53
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 55
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 59
coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 60
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 61
of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 62
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 63
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 64
Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of 65
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 69
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 70
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 71
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; a 72
Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 73
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 77
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 78
cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 79
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 80
an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 81
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 85
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 86
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 87
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and 89
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 91
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 95
coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 96
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 97
of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 98
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 100
Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new 101
SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and Neutrosophic 102
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut 103
for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, 104
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature 105
review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the 106
significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other 107
SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions 108
are followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with 109
different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical 110
aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to 111
figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special 112
case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. 113
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. 114
These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 115
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 116
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 117
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 118
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 119
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 120
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 121
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 122
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 123
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 124
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 125
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 126
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a 127
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 128
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 129
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 130
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 131
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 132
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 133
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 134
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . Since there’s more ways to get type-results 135
to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut more understandable. For the sake of having 136
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 137
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 138
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 139
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 140
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 142
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 144
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 145
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 146
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 147
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 148
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 149
SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . It’s the main. It’ll be 150
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 151
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut until the 152
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” 153
but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . There are some instances about 154
the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut ”. These 155
two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 156
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . For 157
the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need to 158
“redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” and a 159
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 160
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 161
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 163
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut are redefined to a 164
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to 165
define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 166
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut more 167
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 169
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 170
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”, “Neutrosophic 172
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 174
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” where 175
it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the 176
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices 177
from a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut .] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . A graph is a 178
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 179
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 180
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 181
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 182
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 183
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 184
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 185
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 186
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 187
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 188
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 189
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 190
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 191
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 192
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 193
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 194
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 195
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 196
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 197
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 198
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 199
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 200
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 201
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 202
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 203
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 204
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 205
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 206
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 207
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 208
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 209
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 210
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 211
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 212
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 213
either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut or the strongest 214
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 215
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, called SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and the 216
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, called Neutrosophic 217
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 218
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 219
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 220
of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 221
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 222
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 223
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 224
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 225
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 226
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 227
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 228
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 229
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 230
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 231
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 232
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 233
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 234
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 235
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 236
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 237
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 238
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 239
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 240
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 241
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 242
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 243
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 244
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 245
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 246
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 247
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 248
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 249
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 250
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 251
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 252
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 253
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 254
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 255
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 256
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 257
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 258
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 259
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 260
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 261
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 262
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 263
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 264
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 265
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 266
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 267
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 268
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 269
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 270
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 271
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 272
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 273
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 274
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut or the Extreme 275
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results 276
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath 277
s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 278
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. There isn’t 279
any formation of any SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of 280
any SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 281
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 282
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” of either individual of cells or the 283
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 284
of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 285
group of cells? 286
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 287
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 288
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 289
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 290
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” and “Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” on 291
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 292
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 293
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 294
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 295
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 296
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 297
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 298
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 299
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 300
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 301
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 302
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 303
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 304
and Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, are figured out in sections “ 305
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” and “Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”. In the 306
sense of tackling on getting results and in Hamiltonian-Cut to make sense about 307
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 308
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 309
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 310
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back 311
to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 312
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 313
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 314
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 315
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 316
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 317
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 318
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”, 319
“Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results 320
on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done about 321
the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going to 322
figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as presented 323
in section, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”. The keyword of this research debut in the 324
section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: 325
The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 326
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 327
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 328
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 329
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 330
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 331
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 332
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 333
Research On the Redeemed Ways 334
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 335
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [157],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 336
Set](Ref. [157],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 337
(NSHG)](Ref. [157],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 338
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [157],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [157], 339
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 340
(NSHG)](Ref. [157],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 341
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [157],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 342
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [157],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 343
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [157]. 344
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 345
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 346
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [157],Definition 2.1,p.1). 347
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cut 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 348
+
]− 0, 1 [. 349
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [157],Definition 2.2,p.2). 350
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cut 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. [157],Definition 351
2.5,p.2). 352
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 353
pair S = (V, E), where 354
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 355
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 356
1, 2, . . . , n); 357
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 358
V; 359
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 360
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 361
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 362
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 363
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 364
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 365
(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 . 366
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 367
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 368
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 369
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 370
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 371
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 372
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 373
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 374
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 375
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 376
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 377
(Ref. [157],Definition 2.7,p.3). 378
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 379
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 380
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 381
characterized as follow-up items. 382
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 383
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 384
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 385
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 386
HyperEdge; 387
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 388
SuperEdge; 389
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 390
SuperHyperEdge. 391
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 392
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 393
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [157], Definition 2.7, p.3). 394
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 395
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 396
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 397
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 398
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 399
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 400
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)). 401
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 402
pair S = (V, E), where 403
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 404
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 405
1, 2, . . . , n); 406
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 407
V; 408
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 409
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 410
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 411
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 412
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 413
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 414
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 415
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 416
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 417
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 418
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 419
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 420
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 421
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 422
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 423
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 424
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 425
(Ref. [157],Definition 2.7,p.3). 426
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 427
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 428
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 429
characterized as follow-up items. 430
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 431
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 432
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 433
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 434
HyperEdge; 435
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 436
SuperEdge; 437
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 438
SuperHyperEdge. 439
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 440
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 441
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 442
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 443
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 444
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 445
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 446
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 447
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 448
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 449
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 450
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 451
given SuperHyperEdges; 452
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 453
SuperHyperEdges; 454
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 455
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 456
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 457
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 458
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 459
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 460
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 461
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 462
common SuperVertex. 463
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 464
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 465
of following conditions hold: 466
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 475
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 476
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 477
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. 478
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 479
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 480
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 481
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 482
SuperHyperPath . 483
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 484
(Ref. [157],Definition 5.3,p.7). 485
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 486
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 487
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 488
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 489
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 490
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 491
(NSHE)). (Ref. [157],Definition 5.4,p.7). 492
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 493
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 494
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 495
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 496
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 497
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 498
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 499
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 501
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 502
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 504
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 505
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 506
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 507
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 508
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 509
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 511
either V 0 or E 0 is called 512
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is 513
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 514
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression 515
is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 516
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 517
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is 518
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 519
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression 520
is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 521
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 522
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 523
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 526
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 527
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 529
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 530
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 534
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 535
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 536
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 537
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 538
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 539
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 542
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 543
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 544
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 545
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 548
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 549
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 550
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 551
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 552
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 553
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 554
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 555
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 556
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 557
its Extreme coefficient; 558
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial 559
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 560
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 562
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 563
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 564
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 565
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 566
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 567
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic 568
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 569
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 570
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 575
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 576
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of 579
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a 582
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 583
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 584
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 585
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 586
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 587
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if 588
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 589
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 591
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 592
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 593
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 594
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 595
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 597
its Extreme coefficient; 598
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial 599
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 600
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 602
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 603
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 604
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 606
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 607
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic 608
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 609
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 610
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 611
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 612
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut such that either of the following expressions hold for 613
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
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 614
|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 615
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 616
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of 617
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut such that either of the following 618
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 619
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 620
|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. 621
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 622
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 623
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need to 624
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 625
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 626
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 627
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 628
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 629
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 630
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 631
understandable. 632
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 633
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 634
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 635
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 636
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 637
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 638
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 639
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 640
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 641
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 642
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut more Neutrosophicly understandable. 643
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need 644
to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”. 645

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 646
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 647
assign to the values. 648
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. It’s redefined a 649
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the Table (3) holds. 650
4 Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut But As 651
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 652
Forms 653
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 654
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 655
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 656
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 657
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 658
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 659
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 661
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 662
s-independent criteria 663
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. 664
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 665
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 666
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Any k-function Hamiltonian-Cut like E is 668
called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Hamiltonian-Cut like E is 669
called Extreme Variable. 670
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 671
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 672
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 674
called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 675
Expectation criteria 676
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 677
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. an Extreme number is called Extreme 679
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 680
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). 681
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let m and n propose special 682
Hamiltonian-Cut. Then with m ≥ 4n, 683
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 684
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 685
independently with probability Hamiltonian-Cut p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 686
H := G[S]. 687
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: 688
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
689
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 690
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 691
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane 692
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 693
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 694
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 695
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 696
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 697
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 698
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 699
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 700
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 702
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 703
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 704
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 705
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 706
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 707

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 708
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
709
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 710
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 711
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 712
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 713
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 714
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 715
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 716
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 717
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 718
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 719
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 720
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let X be a 721
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 722
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. 723
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 724
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let Xn be a 725
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 726
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 727
Proof. 728
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 729
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. A special 730
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 731
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. 733
Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, 734
where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 735
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 736
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 737
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 738
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 739
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 740
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 741
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: 742
k+1
n
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 743
k+1 −p)(k+1)choose2 −pk/2k+1

n e ne
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 744
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 745
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 746
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 747
number at most k. 748
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 749
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 751
called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance 752
criteria 753
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let X be an 755
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 756
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t 758
be a positive real number. Then 759
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ 2
= .
t t2
760
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let Xn be an 762
Extreme Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 763
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 764
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 766
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 767
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 768
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 770
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 771
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 772
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. As in the proof of related Theorem, the 774
result is straightforward. 775
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 777
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 778
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 779
or 780
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 781
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 783
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 784
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let P be a monotone property of 786
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 787
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 788
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 789
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 790
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 791
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let F be a fixed Extreme 793
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 794
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 795
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let F be a 797
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 798
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 799
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 800
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 802
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.3)
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 803
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 804
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 805
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 806
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 807
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 808
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 809
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 810
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 811
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 812
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 813
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cut
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
814
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 817
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 818
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 819
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 820
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 821
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 822

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 823

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
824
straightforward. 827

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
828



= {E1 }.
= 2z 2 + z.
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
832


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
836

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
840


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
844

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



848

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
852

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

856

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
860

= {E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }.
= 5z 2 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }.
= z 8 + z 7 + 3z 5 .

864

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
868

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z2.
= {V1 }.
= z5.



872

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
876


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
880

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
884




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
888

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
892


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
896

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {VE2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.
900




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
904
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 905
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 906
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 907
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 908
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 909
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 910
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 911
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 912
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 913
any given Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 914
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 915
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 916
an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 917
them but not all of them. 918
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-Hamiltonian-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut is at 919
least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 920
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 921
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 922
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 923
Hamiltonian-Cut in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 924
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 925
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. 926
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cut 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-Hamiltonian-Cut with the least Extreme cardinality, 927
the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 928
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 929
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 930
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Hamiltonian-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the 931
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Hamiltonian-Cut is the 932
cardinality of 933
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP 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-Hamiltonian-Cut
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-Hamiltonian-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut 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-Hamiltonian-Cut. 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 934
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 935
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 936
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 937
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 938
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 939
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 940
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 941
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut 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-Hamiltonian-Cut. 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-Hamiltonian-Cut has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus,
an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut has the Extreme cardinality at least an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme
SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut 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-Hamiltonian-Cut” 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-Hamiltonian-Cut 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-Hamiltonian-Cut for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 942
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 943
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 944
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 945
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-Hamiltonian-Cut. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an
Extreme style-R-Hamiltonian-Cut. 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-Hamiltonian-Cut is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut 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-Hamiltonian-Cut. 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, 946
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
947
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut, 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-Hamiltonian-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut is 948
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 949
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 950
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 951
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 952
Hamiltonian-Cut in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 953
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 954
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. 955
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 956
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 957
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 958
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 959
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 960
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 961
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 962
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 963
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 964
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 965
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut 966
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 967
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Hamiltonian-Cut. The SuperHyperNotions of 968
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 969
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 970
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 971
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 972
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 973
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 974
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. The interior types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 975
deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the 976
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 977
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any 978
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. 979
Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme 980
SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme 981
SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme 982
Hamiltonian-Cut, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since 983
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 984
relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 985
inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 986
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 987
implying the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. The Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the 988
exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme 989
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the 990
inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 991
Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 992
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 993
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 994
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut minus all 995
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 996
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 997
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut, minus 998
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 999
The main definition of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut has two titles. an Extreme 1000
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1001
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1002
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut with that quasi-maximum 1003
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1004
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1005
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1006
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cuts for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded 1007
maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut ends up but this 1008
essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut, again and more 1009
in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cuts acted on the 1010
all possible used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme 1011
number. This Extreme number is 1012
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cuts. 1013
Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cut be an Extreme 1014
number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut. Then 1015
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cut ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut is 1016
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1017
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cut ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1018
technical definition for the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut. 1019
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cut =
{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 1020
Hamiltonian-Cut poses the upcoming expressions. 1021
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1022
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1023

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1024


1025
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1026

1027

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1028
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1029
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1030
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1031
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1032
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut” since “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut” happens “Extreme 1033
Hamiltonian-Cut” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1034
background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1035
Hamiltonian-Cut” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1036
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1037
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1038
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut”, and “Extreme 1039
Hamiltonian-Cut” are up. 1040
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cut 1041
be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme 1042
Hamiltonian-Cut and the new terms are up. 1043

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1044
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1045
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1046
And with go back to initial structure, 1047


1048
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1049

1050

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1051
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut if for any 1052
of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1053
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1054
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1055
them. 1056
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1057
are coming up. 1058
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. The

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1059
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1060
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 Hamiltonian-Cut 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 Hamiltonian-Cut is up. The obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut 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-Hamiltonian-Cut is
up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1061
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1062
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1063
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1064
Hamiltonian-Cut and it’s an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it’s 1065
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 Hamiltonian-Cut. There isn’t only less than
two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Hamiltonian-Cut, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1066
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1067
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1068
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1069
“Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut” 1070
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1071
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut, 1072
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-Hamiltonian-Cut amid those obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1073
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1074
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1075
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 1076
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 1077
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1078
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1079
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1080
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1081
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1082
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1083
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1084
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the least 1085
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1086
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1087
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1088
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1089
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut. 1090
Since it doesn’t have 1091
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1092
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1093
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1094
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1095
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1096
R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that 1097
there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1098
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1099
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1100
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1101
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1102
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1103
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1104
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cut, VESHE is 1105
up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1106
R-Hamiltonian-Cut, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all 1107
Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1108
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1109
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1110
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1111
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1112
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1113
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1114
R-Hamiltonian-Cut only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1115
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1116
there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1117
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1118
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1119
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1120
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cut, is up. There’s neither empty 1121
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1122
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1123
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1124
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1125
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut. The 1126
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1127
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1128
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1129
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1131
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1132
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1133
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1134
non-obvious Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1135
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut is an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1136
includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1137
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1138
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1139
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1140
Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1141
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1142
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1143
Hamiltonian-Cut. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1144
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1145
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1146
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1147
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1148
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut and 1149
it’s an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it’s 1150
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1152
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1153
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1154
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1155
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut, 1156
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1157
Hamiltonian-Cut, not: 1158
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1159
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1160
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1161
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1162
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut” 1163
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1164
Extreme Hamiltonian-Cut, 1165
is only and only 1166
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1167
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1168
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1169
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1170
SuperHyperClasses. 1171
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1172

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1173
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1174
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). 1175
There’s a new way to redefine as 1176
ViEXT ERN AL ∼ VjEXT ERN AL ≡

∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez ≡
∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez .
The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )| ≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 1177
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. The 1178
latter is straightforward. 1179
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1180
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1181
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1182
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1183
Then 1184

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Example (16.5)
Proof. Let 1185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1186
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). 1187

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1192
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1193
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1194
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.7)
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1195

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1196
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1197
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1198
a new way to redefine as 1199

Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1203
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1204
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1205
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1206
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1207
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1208
Then 1209

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1210
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
1211
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). 1212

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1216
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1217
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1218
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1219
the 1220
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut taken from a connected Extreme 1221
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1222
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1223
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1224
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1225
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1226
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1227
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1228
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1229
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1230
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1231
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1232

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1233
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
1234
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 1236

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1239
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1240
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1241
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1242
the 1243
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1244
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1245
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1248
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1249
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1250
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1251
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1252
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1253
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1254
Then, 1255

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {CEN T ER}.
= za.
Proof. Let 1256
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Example (16.13)
1257
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1259

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Thus 1262
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1263
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. The unique embedded 1264
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut proposes some longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1265
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1266
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1267
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1268
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1269
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1270
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1271
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1272
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1273
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and the 1274
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, some general results are introduced. 1275
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is “redefined” 1276
on the positions of the alphabets. 1277
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1278
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cut =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − Cutof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cut
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−Cut. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1279
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1280
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1281
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1282
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and 1283
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut coincide. 1284
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an 1286
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if and only if it’s a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1287
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1289
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1290
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1291
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is 1292
its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and reversely. 1293
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 1294
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1295
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1296
is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and reversely. 1297
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1298
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1299
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1300
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1301
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1302
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1305
Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1306
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1308
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1309
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined. 1310
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1311
its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1312
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1315
Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1316
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1318
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1319
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1320
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1321
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1322
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1323
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1324
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1325
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1326
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1327
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1328
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1329
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1330
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1331
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1332
independent SuperHyperSet is 1333
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1334
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1335
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1336
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1337
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1338
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1339
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1340
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1341
a maximal 1342
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1343
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1344
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1345
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1346
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1347
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1348
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1349
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1350
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1351
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1352
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1353
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1354
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1355
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1356
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1357
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1358
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1360
number of 1361
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1362
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1363
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1364
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1365
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1366
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1367
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1368
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1369
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1371
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1372
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1373
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1374
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1375
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1376
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1377
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1378
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1381
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1382
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1383
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1384
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1388
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1389
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1390
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1393
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1394
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1395
is a 1396
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1400
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1401
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1402
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1405
number of 1406
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1410
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1411
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1412
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1413
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1414
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1415
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1417
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1418
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1422
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1423
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1424
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1425
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1426
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1427
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1428
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1429
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1433
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1435
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1436
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1437
setting of dual 1438
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1442
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1443
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1444
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1446
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1448
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1449
dual 1450
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1454
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1455
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1456
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1458
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1459
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1460
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1466
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1467
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1468
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1469
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1470
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1471
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 1472
that 1473
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1474
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1475
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1476
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then 1477
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut set; 1478
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1479
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1480
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1481
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1482
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1483
connected. Then 1484
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1485
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1486
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1487
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1488
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1490
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1491
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1492
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1493
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1494
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1495
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1497
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1498
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1499
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1500
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1501
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1502
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1503
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1505
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1506
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1507
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1508
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1510
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1511
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1513
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1514
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1515
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1517
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1518
(ii) Γ = 1; 1519
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1520
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1521
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1523
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1524
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1525
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1526
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1527
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1528
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1529
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1530
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1531
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1533
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1534
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1535
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1537
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1538
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1540

bnc ; 1541
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1542
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1544
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1545
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1546
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF; 1547
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1548
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1549
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1550
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1551
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1552
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1553
SuperHyperSet. Then 1554
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1555
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF; 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1557

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1558
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1559
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1561
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1562
SuperHyperSet. Then 1563
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1564
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF : (V, E); 1565
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1566

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1567
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1568
following statements hold; 1571
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1572
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is an 1573
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1574
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1575
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is a dual 1576
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1577
following statements hold; 1579
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1580
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is an 1581
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1582
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1583
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is a dual 1584
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1585
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1586
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1587
hold; 1588
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1589
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1590
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1591
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1593
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1595
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1596
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1597
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1598
hold; 1599
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1600
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1602
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1604
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1606
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1607
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1609
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1610
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1611
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1613
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1615
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1618
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1620
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1621
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1622
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1624
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1626
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1627
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1629
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1631
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1632
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1633
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1635
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1637
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1640
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1642
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1643
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1644
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1646
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1648
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1651
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1652
Recognition 1653
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1654
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1655
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1656
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1657
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1658
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1659
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1660
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1661
long-term Extreme function. 1662
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1663
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1664
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1665
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1666
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1667
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1668
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1669
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1670
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1671
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1672
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1673
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 1674
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1675
find either the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut or the Extreme 1676
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1677
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1678
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1679
SuperHyperModel 1680
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1681
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1682
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1683
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1684
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1685
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1686
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1687
the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1688
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1689
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1690
SuperHyperModel 1691
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1692
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1693
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1694
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1695
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1696
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1698
is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1699
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1700
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1701
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1702
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut are 1703
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1704
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1705
recognitions? 1706
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1707
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut? 1708
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1709
compute them? 1710
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1711
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut? 1712
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Extreme 1713
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1714
they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, are there else? 1715
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1716
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1717
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1718
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1719
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1720
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1721
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1722
highlighted. 1723
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1724
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1725
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1726
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 1727
on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1728
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, finds the convenient background to implement 1729
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme 1730
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 1731
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 1732
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1733
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1734
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1735
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. The 1736
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1737
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1738
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1739
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1740
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1741
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1742
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1743
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1744
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1745
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1746
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut
3. Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1747
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1748
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1749
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1750
Forms 1751
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1752
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1753
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1754
V 0 or E 0 is called 1755
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1756
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1757
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1758
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1759
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1760
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1761
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1762
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1763
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1764
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1765
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1766
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1767
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1768
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1769
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1771
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1772
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1773
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1774
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1775
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1776
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1777
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1779
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1780
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1781
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1782
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1783
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1784
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1785
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1786
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1787
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1788
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1790
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1791
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1792
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1793
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1794
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1795
Extreme coefficient; 1796
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1797
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1807
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1812
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1814
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1815
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1819
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1821
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1822
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1823
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1827
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1828
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1832
Extreme coefficient. 1841
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1845
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1846
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1847
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1848
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1849
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1851
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 1854
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1855
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1856
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1857
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1858
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1859


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). 1902
Then 1903
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 1904
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 1908
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1912
Then 1914
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 1915
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1923
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1924
Then 1925
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 1926
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1936
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1937
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1938
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 1939
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 1944
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1945
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1946
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1947
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1948
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1949
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1957

= {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 1960
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1961

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1967
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 SuperHyperDuality. 1978
Then, 1980
∗ ∗
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 1981
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 1982
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1983

∃!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 1988
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1989
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1991
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1992
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1994
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1995
Forms 1997
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1998
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2002
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2003
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2004
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2005
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2007
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2008
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2009
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2010
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2012
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2013
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2014
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2017
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2018
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2019
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2023
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2024
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2026
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2030
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2031
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2032
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2033
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2039
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2041
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2051
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2057
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2058
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2062
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2064
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2065
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2075
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2088
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2089
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2094
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. 2096
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2102


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 2146
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 2147
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2151
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2155
Then 2157

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

.
Proof. Let 2158
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2166
Then 2168
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 2169

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2179
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 2182
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 2187
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2188
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2189
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2191
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2200

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 2203
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2204
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2205

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2208
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2209
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2210
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. 2221
Then, 2223

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

.
Proof. Let 2224
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2225

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2229
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2230
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2231
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2232
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2237
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2238
Forms 2240
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2241
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2245
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2246
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2247
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2248
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2250
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2251
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2252
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2253
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2255
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2256
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2257
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2258
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2261
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2263
SuperHyperPerfect; 2268
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2269
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2271
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2275
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2276
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2277
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2278
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2284
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2286
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2296
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2297
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2301
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2303
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2304
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2305
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2308
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2310
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2311
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2312
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2321
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2334
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2340
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. 2348


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 2392
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 2393
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2397
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2401
Then 2403
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 2404
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2412
Then 2414
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2415

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2425
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 2428
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 2433
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2434
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2435
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2436
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2437
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2446

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 2449
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2450

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2454
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2455
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2456
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. 2467
Then, 2469
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2470
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2471

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2475
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2476
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2477
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2478
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2483
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2484
Forms 2486
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2487
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2491
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2492
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2493
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2494
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2496
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2497
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2498
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2499
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2501
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2502
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2503
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2504
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2507
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2509
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2513
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2514
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2516
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2520
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2521
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2522
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2523
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2529
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2531
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2541
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2547
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2548
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2552
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2554
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2555
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2565
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2578
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2584
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. 2592


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 2636
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 2637
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2641
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2645
Then 2647
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 2648
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. 2656
Then 2658
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 2659
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2669
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 2672
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2677
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2678
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2681
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2690

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 2693
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2694
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2695

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2698
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2699
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. 2711
Then, 2713
∗
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 2714
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2715

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2719
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2720
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2721
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2722
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2727
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2728
Forms 2730
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2731
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2735
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2736
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2737
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2738
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2740
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2741
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2742
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2743
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2745
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2746
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2747
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2748
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2751
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2753
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2754
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2755
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2756
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2758
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2759
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2762
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2763
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2764
SuperHyperConnected; 2766
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2767
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2768
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2770
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2775
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2777
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2778
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2787
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2791
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2792
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2794
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2795
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2799
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2800
SuperHyperConnected; 2802
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2803
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2804
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2805
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2806
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2813
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2814
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2826
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2827
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2828
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2829
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2830
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2831
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2832
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2833
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 2836
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2837
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2838
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2839
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2841


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 2905
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 2906
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 2910
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2914
Then 2916
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 2917
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 2920
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2925
Then 2927
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 2928
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2938
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 2941
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2946
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2947
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2950
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2951
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2959
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 2962
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2963

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2967
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2968
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. 2980
Then, 2982
∗
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 2983
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2984

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2988
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2989
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2990
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2991
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2997
17 Background 2998
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2999
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3000
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3001
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3002
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3003
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3004
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3005
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3006
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3007
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3008
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3009
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3010
results based on initial background. 3011
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3012
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3013
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3014
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3015
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3016
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3017
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3018
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3019
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3020
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3021
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3022
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3023
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3024
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3025
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3026
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3027
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3028
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3029
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3030
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3031
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3032
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3033
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3034
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3035
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3036
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3037
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3038
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3039
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3040
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3041
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3042
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3043
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3044
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3045
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3046
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3047
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3048
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3049
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3050
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3051
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3052
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3053
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3054
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3055
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3056
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3057
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3058
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3059
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3060
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3061
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3062
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3063
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3064
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3065
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3066
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3067
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3068
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3069
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3070
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3071
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3072
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3073
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3074
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3075
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3076
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3077
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3078
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3079
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3080
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3081
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3082
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3083
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3084
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3085
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3086
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3087
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [127] by Henry Garrett 3088
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3089
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3090
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [128] by Henry Garrett 3091
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3092
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3093
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [129] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3094
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3095
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3096
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [130] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3097
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [133] by 3099
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3100
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3101
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [134] by Henry 3102
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3103
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3104
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [137] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3105
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3106
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [140] by Henry 3107
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3108
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3109
in Ref. [141] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3110
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3111
Ref. [142] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3112
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [143] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3114
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3115
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [144] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3116
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3117
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3118
in Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3119
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3120
in Ref. [156] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3121
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3122
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [157] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3123
and [4–157], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3124
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3125
books at [158–249]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3126
readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [250, 251]. 3127
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3128
proposed as book in Ref. [238] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3129
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3130
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3131
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3132
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3133
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3134
proposed as book in Ref. [239] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3135
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3136
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3137
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3138
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3139
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3140
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3141
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3142
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3143
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3144
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–157] 3145
alongside scientific research books at [158–249]. Two popular scientific research books 3146
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3147
science is on [250, 251]. 3148
References 3149
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3150
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3151
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3152
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3153
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3154
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3155
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3156
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3157
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3158
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3159
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3160
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3161
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3162
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3163
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3164
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3165
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3166
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3167
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3168
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3169
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3170
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3171
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3172
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3173
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3174
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3175
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3176
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3177
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3178
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3179
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3180
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3181
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3182
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3183
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3184
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3185
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3186
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3187
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3188
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3189
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3190
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3191
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3192
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3193
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3194
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3195
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3196
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3197
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3198
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3199
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3200
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3201
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3202
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3203
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3204
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3205
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3206
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3207
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3208
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3209
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3210
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3211
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3213
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3214
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3215
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3216
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3218
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3219
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3220
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3221
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3222
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3223
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3225
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3229
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3230
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3231
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3232
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3233
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3234
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3235
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3236
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3237
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3238
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3239
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3240
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3241
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3242
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3243
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3244
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3245
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3246
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3247
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3248
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3249
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3250
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3251
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3253
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3254
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3255
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3256
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787094). 3257
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3259
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3260
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3261
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3262
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3265
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3266
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3267
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3268
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3270
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3271
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3272
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3274
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3277
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3278
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3279
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3280
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3281
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3283
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3286
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3287
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3289
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3290
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3292
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3295
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3297
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3298
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3299
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3301
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3304
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3307
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3308
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3310
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3313
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3315
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3317
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3319
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3321
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3322
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3325
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3327
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3328
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3331
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3333
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3335
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3337
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3339
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3340
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3343
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3344
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3346
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3349
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3351
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3353
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3355
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3356
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3358
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3360
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3362
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3364
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3365
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3366
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3367
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3368
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3370
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3371
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3372
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3373
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3376
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3378
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3379
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3382
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3383
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3384
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3385
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3388
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3390
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3392
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3394
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3395
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3396
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3397
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3400
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3401
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3402
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3403
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3406
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3407
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3408
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3409
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3412
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3413
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3414
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3415
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3418
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3419
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3420
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3421
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3424
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3425
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3426
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3427
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3429
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3430
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3433
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3434
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3435
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3436
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3439
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3440
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3441
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3442
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3445
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3447
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3448
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3451
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3452
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3453
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3454
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3456
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3457
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3460
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3461
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3463
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3465
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3466
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3468
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3469
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3471
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3472
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3473
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3474
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3475
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3476
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3477
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3478
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3480
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3481
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3482
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3483
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3484
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3485
104. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3486
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3487
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3488
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3489
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3492
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3493
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3496
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3497
107. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3498
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3500
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3501
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3504
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3505
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3508
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3509
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3510
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3511
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3512
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3513
111. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3514
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3515
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3516
112. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3517
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3518
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3519
113. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3520
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3521
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3522
114. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3523
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3524
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3525
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3526
115. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3527
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3528
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3529
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3530
116. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3531
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3532
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3533
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3534
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3535
117. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3536
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3537
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3538
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3539
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3540
118. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3541
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3542
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3543
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3544
119. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3545
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3546
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3547
120. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3548
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3549
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3551
121. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3552
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3553
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3554
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3555
122. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3556
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3557
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3558
123. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3559
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3560
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3561
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3562
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3563
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3564
124. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3565
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3566
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3567
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3568
125. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3569
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3570
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3571
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3572
126. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3573
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3574
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3575
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3576
127. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3577
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3578
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3579
128. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3580
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3581
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3582
129. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3584
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3585
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3586
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3587
130. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3588
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3589
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3590
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3591
131. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3592
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3593
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3594
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3595
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3597
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3598
133. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3599
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3600
134. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3602
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3603
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3604
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3609
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3613
137. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3614
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3615
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3616
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3617
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3620
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3622
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3623
140. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3624
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3625
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3628
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3629
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3631
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3632
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3635
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3636
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3638
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3639
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3642
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3643
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3645
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3646
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3648
148. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3650
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3653
149. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3655
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3658
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3665
152. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3666
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3667
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3668
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3669
153. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3670
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3671
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3672
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3673
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3676
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3677
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3680
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3681
156. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3682
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3683
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3684
157. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3685
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3686
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3687
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3688
158. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3689
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787712). 3690
159. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3691
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3692
160. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3693
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3694
161. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3695
162. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3697
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3698
163. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3699
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3700
164. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3701
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3702
165. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3703
166. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3705
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3706
167. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3707
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3708
168. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3709
169. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3711
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3712
170. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3713
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3714
171. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3715
172. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3717
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3718
173. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3719
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3720
174. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3721
175. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3723
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3724
176. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3725
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3726
177. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3727
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3728
178. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3729
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3730
179. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3731
180. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3733
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3734
181. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3735
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3736
182. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3737
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3738
183. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3739
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3740
184. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3741
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3742
185. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3743
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3744
186. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3745
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3746
187. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3747
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3748
188. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3749
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3750
189. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3751
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3752
190. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3753
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3754
191. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3755
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3756
192. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3757
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3758
193. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3759
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3760
194. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3761
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3762
195. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3763
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3764
196. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3765
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3766
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3767
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3768
198. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3769
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3770
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3771
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3772
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3773
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3774
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3775
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3776
202. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3777
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3778
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3779
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3780
204. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3781
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3782
205. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3783
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3784
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3785
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3786
207. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3787
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3788
208. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3789
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3790
209. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3791
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3792
210. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3793
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3794
211. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3795
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3796
212. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3797
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3798
213. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3799
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3800
214. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3801
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3802
215. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3803
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3804
216. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3805
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3806
217. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3807
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3808
218. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3809
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3810
219. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3811
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3812
220. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3813
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3814
221. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3815
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3816
222. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3817
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3818
223. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3819
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3820
224. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3821
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3822
225. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3823
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3824
226. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3825
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3826
227. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3827
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3828
228. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3829
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3830
229. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3831
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3832
230. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3833
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3834
231. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3835
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3836
232. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3837
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3838
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3839
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3840
234. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3841
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3842
235. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3843
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3844
236. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3845
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3846
237. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3847
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3848
238. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3849
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3850
239. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3851
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3852
240. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3853
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3854
241. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3855
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3856
242. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3857
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3858
243. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3859
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3860
244. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3861
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3862
245. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3863
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3864
246. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3865
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3866
247. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3867
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3868
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3869
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3870
249. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3871
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3872
250. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3873
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3874
251. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3875
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3876

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.

com · Manhattan, NY, USA

New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 2

Hamiltonian-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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 10

a Hamiltonian-Cut 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-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 14

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 16

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 19

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 21

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 24

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 25

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 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 SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 30

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 31

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 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 SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; a Neutrosophic 36

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 38

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 39

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 40

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

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 42

conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 43

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 44

an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 45

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 46

re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and 47

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 48

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 49

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 50

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 51

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 52

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and 53

the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 55

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 56

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 57

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 58

N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 59

coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 60

cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 61

of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 62

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 63

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 64

Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of 65