New Ideas On Super Hammy by Hyper Hamper of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369708364
New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7791982
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
414 PUBLICATIONS 9,140 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 01 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 2
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 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-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10
(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11
SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 12
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 13
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 16
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 19
∀Va ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 21
∀Va ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 24
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 25
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 26
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) 27
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28
(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 30
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 31
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 35
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 39
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 40
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 44
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 48
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 54
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 55
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 56
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 57
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 59
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 60
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 66
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 67
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 68
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 69
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 70
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is 71
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 72
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 73
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 78
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 79
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 80
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; a Neutrosophic 82
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 83
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 88
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 89
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 92
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 98
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 99
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 100
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 103
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 104
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 110
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 111
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 112
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 113
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 114
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is 115
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 116
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 117
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Two different types of 118
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 119
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 120
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 121
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 122
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 123
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 124
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 125
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 126
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 127
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 128
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 129
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 130
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 131
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 132
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 133
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 134
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 135
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 136
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 137
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 138
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 139
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 140
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 141
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 142
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 143
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a maximal Neutrosophic of 144
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 145
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 146
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 147
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 148
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 149
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 150
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . Since there’s more ways to get 151
type-results to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut more understandable. For 152
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to 153
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ”. The 154
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 155
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 156
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . It’s redefined a 157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the mentioned Table holds, 158
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 159
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 160
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 161
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 162
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 163
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 164
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 165
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 166
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 167
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 168
have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut until the 169
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then it’s officially called a 170
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” but otherwise, it isn’t a 171
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . There are some instances about the clarifications 172
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ”. These two 173
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 174
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 175
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 177
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” and a “Neutrosophic 178
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 179
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 180
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 182
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut are redefined to a 183
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” if the intended Table holds. It’s 184
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 185
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 186
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 188
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 189
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 190
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 191
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 192
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 193
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 194
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” where it’s the strongest [the 195
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut amid the 196
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 197
.] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 198
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 199
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 200
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 201
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s 202
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s 203
SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 204
it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 205
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 206
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 207
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 208
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 209
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 210
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 211
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 212
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 213
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 214
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 215
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 216
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 217
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 218
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 219
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 220
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 221
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 222
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 223
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 224
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 225
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 226
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 227
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 228
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 229
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 230
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 231
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 232
either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut or the strongest 233
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 234
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, called SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 235
and the strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, called Neutrosophic 236
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 237
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 238
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 239
of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 240
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 241
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 242
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut theory, 243
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 244
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 245
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 246
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 247
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 248
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 249
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 250
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 251
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 252
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 253
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 254
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 255
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 256
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 257
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 258
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 259
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 260
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 261
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 262
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 263
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 264
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 265
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 266
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 267
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 268
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 269
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 270
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 271
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 272
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 273
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 274
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 275
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 276
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 277
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 278
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 279
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in the themes of jargons and 280
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 281
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 282
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 283
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 284
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 285
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 286
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 287
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 288
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 289
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 290
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 291
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 292
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 293
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut or the Extreme 294
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general 295
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 296
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 297
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 298
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 299
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 300
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 301
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 302
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” of either individual of cells or 303
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 304
“amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 305
fixed groups of group of cells? 306
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 307
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 308
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 309
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 310
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” and “Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” 311
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 312
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 313
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 314
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 315
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 316
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 317
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 318
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 319
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 320
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 321
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 322
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 323
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 324
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 325
are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” and “Extreme 326
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 327
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 328
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 329
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 330
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 331
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 332
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 333
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 334
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 335
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 336
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 337
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 338
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 339
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, “Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, 340
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There 341
are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense 342
about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 343
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ 344
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 345
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 346
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 347
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 348
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 349
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 350
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 351
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 352
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 353
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 354
Research On the Redeemed Ways 355
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 356
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [159],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 357
Set](Ref. [159],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 358
(NSHG)](Ref. [159],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 359
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [159],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [159], 360
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 361
(NSHG)](Ref. [159],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 362
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [159],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 363
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [159],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 364
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [159]. 365
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 366
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 367
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [159],Definition 2.1,p.1). 368
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-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 369
+
]− 0, 1 [. 370
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [159],Definition 2.2,p.2). 371
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-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. [159],Definition 372
2.5,p.2). 373
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 374
pair S = (V, E), where 375
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 376
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 377
1, 2, . . . , n); 378
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 379
V; 380
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 381
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 382
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 383
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 384
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 385
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 386
(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 . 387
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 388
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 389
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 390
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 391
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 392
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 393
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 394
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 395
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 396
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 397
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 398
(Ref. [159],Definition 2.7,p.3). 399
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 400
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 401
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 402
characterized as follow-up items. 403
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 404
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 405
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 406
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 407
HyperEdge; 408
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 409
SuperEdge; 410
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 411
SuperHyperEdge. 412
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 413
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 414
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [159], Definition 2.7, p.3). 415
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 416
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 417
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 418
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 419
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 420
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 421
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)). 422
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 423
pair S = (V, E), where 424
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 425
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 426
1, 2, . . . , n); 427
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 428
V; 429
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 430
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 431
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 432
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 433
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 434
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 435
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 436
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 437
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 438
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 439
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 440
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 441
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 442
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 443
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 444
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 445
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 446
(Ref. [159],Definition 2.7,p.3). 447
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 448
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 449
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 450
characterized as follow-up items. 451
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 452
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 453
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 454
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 455
HyperEdge; 456
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 457
SuperEdge; 458
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 459
SuperHyperEdge. 460
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 461
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 462
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 463
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 464
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 465
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 466
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 467
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 468
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 469
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 470
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 471
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 472
given SuperHyperEdges; 473
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 474
SuperHyperEdges; 475
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 476
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 477
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 478
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 479
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 480
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 481
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 482
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 483
common SuperVertex. 484
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 485
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 486
of following conditions hold: 487
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 488
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 489
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 490
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 491
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 492
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 493
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 494
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 495
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 496
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 497
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 498
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. 499
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 500
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 501
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 502
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 503
SuperHyperPath . 504
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 505
(Ref. [159],Definition 5.3,p.7). 506
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 507
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 508
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 509
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 510
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 511
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 512
(NSHE)). (Ref. [159],Definition 5.4,p.7). 513
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 514
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 515
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 516
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 517
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 518
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 519
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 520
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 522
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 523
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 525
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 526
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 527
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 528
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 529
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). 530
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 532
either V 0 or E 0 is called 533
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 534
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 535
criteria holds 536
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 537
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 538
criteria holds 539
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 540
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 541
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 542
criteria holds 543
∀Va ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 544
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 545
criteria holds 546
∀Va ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 547
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 548
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 549
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 552
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). 553
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 555
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 556
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 561
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 562
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 563
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 564
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 565
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 566
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 571
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 572
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 575
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 576
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 582
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 583
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 584
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 585
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is 587
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 588
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 589
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 595
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 596
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 597
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 598
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 599
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the 600
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 601
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 602
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 607
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 608
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 609
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 611
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 612
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 617
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 618
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 622
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 628
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 629
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 630
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 631
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is 633
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 634
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 635
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 641
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 642
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 643
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 644
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 645
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the 646
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 647
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). 648
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 649
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of 650
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut such that either of the following 651
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 652
s∈S: 653
|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 654
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 655
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a Neutrosophic 656
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut such that either of the 657
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 658
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 659
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 660
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 661
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 662
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a 663
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 664
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 665
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 666
assign to the values. 667
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 668
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 669
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 670
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 671
understandable. 672
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 673
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 674
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 675
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 676
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 677
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 678
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 679
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 680
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 681
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make 682
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut more Neutrosophicly 683
understandable. 684
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a 685
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 686
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 687
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 688
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 689

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. It’s redefined a 690
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the Table (3) holds. 691
4 Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut But 692
As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 693
Super Forms 694
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 695
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 696
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 697
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 698
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 699
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 700
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 702
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 703
s-independent criteria 704
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. 705
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 706
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 707
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Any k-function 709
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 710
2-function Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut like E is called Extreme Variable. 711
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 712
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 713
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 715
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 716
Expectation criteria 717
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 718
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. an Extreme number is called 720
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 721
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). 722
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let m and n propose 723
special Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then with m ≥ 4n, 724
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 725
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 726
independently with probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] 727
and H := G[S]. 728
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: 729
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
730
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 731
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 732
of n points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the 733
plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then 734
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 735
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 736
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 737
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 738
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 739
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 740
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 741
2 3
l < 32n /k . 742
Theorem 4.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 743
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 744
of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 745
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 746
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 747
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 748
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 749
i = 0n−1 ni = n
P
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 750
1
P n−1
and k = 2 i=0 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with 751
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 752
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 753
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 754
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 755
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 756
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 757
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 758
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 759
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 760
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 761
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 762
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be a 763
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 764
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. 765
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 766
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let Xn be a 767
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 768
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 769
Proof. 770
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 771
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. A special 772
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 773
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 775
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 776
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 777
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 778
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 779
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 780
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 781
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 782
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 783
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: 784
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 785
nk+1 e−p)(k+1)choose2 ne−pk/2k+1

E(X) ≤ =
(k + 1)! (k + 1)!
Suppose now that k = d2p−1 log ne. Then k ≥ 2p−1 log n, so ne−pk/2 ≤ 1. Because k 786
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 787
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 788
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 789
number at most k. 790
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 791
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 793
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 794
Variance criteria 795
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be an 797
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 798
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be an Extreme Variable and 800
let t be a positive real number. Then 801
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
802
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let Xn be an 804
Extreme Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 805
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 806
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 808
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 809
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 810
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let 812
G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least 813
value of k for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the 814
three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 815
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. As in the proof of related Theorem, 817
the result is straightforward. 818
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 820
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 821
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 822
or 823
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 824
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 826
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 827
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a monotone property of 829
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 830
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 831
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 832
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 833
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 834
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let F be a fixed Extreme 836
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 837
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 838
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let F be a 840
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 841
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 842
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 843
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 845
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 846
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 847
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 848
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 849
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 850
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 851
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 852
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 853
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 854
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 855
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 856
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
857
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 860
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 861
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 862
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 863
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 864
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 865
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 866

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

867
straightforward. 870

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
871

= {E4 , E5 }.
= 2z 5 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , {N }, {F }}.
= z 4 + z 3 + z 2 + 2z.


875

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

879

= {Eii=110 , Ejj=2232 , E12 }.
= 22z 2 .
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
22
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
883


= {E15 , E13 , E16 , E14 , E17 , E12 }.
= 2z 5 + z 4 + 3z 2 .
= {Vi }11
i=1 .
11
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
887

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




= {Eii=110 , Ejj=2223 , E12 }.
= 13z 2 .
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
22
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
895
begineqnarray* C(NSHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut

={E1 , E6 , E2 , E7 , E3 , E4 }.
C(NSHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
=2z5 + z 4 + 3z 2 .
C(NSHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
={Vi }11
i=1 .
C(NSHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
P11
= i=1 z |Vi | . 899
On the Figure (11), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 900


= {E1 , E6 , E3 , E8 }.
= 2z 3 + 2z 2 .
= {Vi }6i=1 .
6
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
903

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




= {E9 , E6 , E3 , E8 }.
= 2z 3 + 2z 2 .
= {Vi }6i=1 .
6
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
911

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



= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
919

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


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
927

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
931




= {Eii=112 }.
12
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
= {Vi }ai=1 .
Xa
= z |Vi | .
i=1
935

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

939

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {VE2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.
943



= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
947
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 948
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 949
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 950
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 951
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 952
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 953
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 954
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 955
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 956
any given Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut minus all Extreme 957
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 958
unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme 959
SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, minus all Extreme 960
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 961
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-Cycle-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 962
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 963
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the 964
Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 965
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 966
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in some cases but 967
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 968
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 969
contained in an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 970
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut with the least Extreme 971
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 972
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 973
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 974
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, 975
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme 976
type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is the cardinality of 977
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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 978
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 979
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 980
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 981
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 982
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 983
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 984
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 985
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut has the
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an Extreme
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 986
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 987
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 988
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 989
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-Cycle-Cut. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included
in an Extreme style-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 990
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
991
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 992
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 993
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 994
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 995
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 996
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in some cases but 997
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 998
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 999
contained in an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1000
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1001
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 1002
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1003
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1004
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 1005
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1006
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1007
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1008
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1009
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1010
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme 1011
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut where the Extreme completion of the Extreme 1012
incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an Extreme embedded 1013
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and 1014
quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets 1015
only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting 1016
is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme 1017
SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two 1018
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme 1019
style of the embedded Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The interior types of the 1020
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 1021
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1022
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 1023
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 1024
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Thus Extreme 1025
exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 1026
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 1027
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s 1028
the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside 1029
more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. 1030
One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 1031
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 1032
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme 1033
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut with the exclusion of 1034
the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and 1035
with other terms, the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut with the inclusion of all 1036
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme 1037
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme 1038
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1039
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1040
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut minus 1041
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1042
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1043
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1044
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1045
The main definition of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut has two titles. an 1046
Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1047
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1048
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut with that quasi-maximum 1049
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1050
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1051
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1052
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cuts for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1053
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 1054
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme 1055
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, again and more in the operations of collecting all the 1056
Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cuts acted on the all possible used formations of 1057
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number 1058
is 1059
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1060
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cuts. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1061
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and 1062
an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1063
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is 1064
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1065
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-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 1066
technical definition for the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1067
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-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 1068
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut poses the upcoming expressions. 1069
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1070
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1071

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1072


1073
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1074

1075

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1076
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1077
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1078
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1079
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1080
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” since “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” happens 1081
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1082
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1083
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1084
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1085
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1086
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, and “Extreme 1087
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” are up. 1088
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1089
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1090
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the new terms 1091
are up. 1092

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1093
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1094
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1095
And with go back to initial structure, 1096


1097
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1098

1099

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1100
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if 1101
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1102
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1103
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1104
them. 1105
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1106
are coming up. 1107
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1108
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1109
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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut is up. The
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1110
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1111
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1112
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1113
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and it’s an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it’s 1114
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-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t only less
than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1115
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1116
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1117
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1118
“Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” 1119
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1120
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1121
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-Cycle-Cut amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut,
are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1122
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1123
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1124
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1125
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1126
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1127
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1128
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1129
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1130
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1131
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1132
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1133
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut with the 1134
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1135
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1136
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1137
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1138
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme 1139
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it doesn’t have 1140
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1141
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1142
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1143
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1144
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1145
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such 1146
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1147
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1148
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1149
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1150
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1151
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1152
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1153
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1154
VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1155
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes 1156
only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1157
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1158
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1159
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1160
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1161
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1162
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1163
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1164
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1165
there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1166
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1167
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1168
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1169
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, is up. There’s neither 1170
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme 1171
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1172
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The Extreme 1173
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1174
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The 1175
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1176
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1177
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1178
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1180
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1181
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1182
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1183
non-obvious Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1184
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is an Extreme 1185
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1186
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1187
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1188
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1189
Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet 1190
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1191
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1192
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1193
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1194
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1195
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1196
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1197
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 1198
and it’s an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it’s 1199
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1201
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1202
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1203
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1204
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1205
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1206
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, not: 1207
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1208
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1209
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1210
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1211
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” 1212
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1213
Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1214
is only and only 1215
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1216
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1217
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1218
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1219
SuperHyperClasses. 1220
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1221

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1222
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1223
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). 1224
There’s a new way to redefine as 1225
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 1226
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1227
The latter is straightforward. 1228
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1229
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1230
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1231
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1232
Then 1233

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.5)
Proof. Let 1234
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1235
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). 1236

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1241
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1242
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.7)
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1243
1244
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1245

= {Ei }.
i=1|EN SHG |

|EN SHG |
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Proof. Let 1246
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1247
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.9)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1248
a new way to redefine as 1249

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1253
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1254
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1255
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1256
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1257
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1258
Then 1259

= {Ei |P min |
}.
i=1 N SHG

min
|PN SHG |
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Proof. Let 1260
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
1261
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). 1262

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1266
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1267
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. 1268
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1269
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1270
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.11)
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut taken from a connected Extreme 1271
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1272
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1273
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1275
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1276
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1277
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1278
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1279
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1280
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1281
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1282

= {Ei |P min |
}.
i=1 N SHG

min
|PN SHG |
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Proof. Let 1283
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1284
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 1286

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1289
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1290
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. 1291
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1292
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.13)
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1294
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1295
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1298
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1299
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1300
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1301
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1302
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1303
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1305
Then, 1306

= {Ei |EN SHG | , Ei∗ , Ej∗ }.
i=1

|EN SHG |+2
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.15)
Proof. Let 1307
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1308
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1310

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1313
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1314
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. The 1315
unique embedded SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut proposes some longest 1316
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1317
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1319
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1320
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1321
of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme 1322
SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1323
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1324
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1325
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Extreme 1326
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and the Extreme 1327
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, some general results are introduced. 1328
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is 1329
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1330
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1331
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Cut =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Cutof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Cut
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−Cycle−Cut. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1332
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1333
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1334
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1335
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and 1336
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut coincide. 1337
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an 1339
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if and only if it’s a 1340
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1343
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if and only if it’s a longest 1344
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1346
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme 1347
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and 1348
reversely. 1349
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme 1350
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 1351
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1352
letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is its 1353
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and reversely. 1354
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1355
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1356
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1357
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1358
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1359
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1363
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1364
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1366
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1367
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined. 1368
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1369
its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1370
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1374
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1375
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1377
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1378
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1379
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1380
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1381
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1382
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1383
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1384
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1385
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1386
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1387
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1388
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1389
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1390
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1391
independent SuperHyperSet is 1392
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1393
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1394
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1395
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1396
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1397
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1398
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1399
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then 1400
V is a maximal 1401
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1402
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1403
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1404
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1405
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1406
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1407
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1408
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1409
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1410
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1411
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1412
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1413
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1414
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1415
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1416
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1418
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then 1420
the number of 1421
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1422
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1423
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1424
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1425
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1426
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1427
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1428
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1429
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1431
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1432
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1433
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1434
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1435
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1436
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1437
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1438
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1441
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1442
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1443
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1444
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1448
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1449
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1450
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1454
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1455
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1456
is a 1457
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1461
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1462
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1463
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1466
number of 1467
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1471
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1472
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1473
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1475
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1476
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1477
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1479
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1480
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1484
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1485
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1486
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1487
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1488
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1489
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1490
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1491
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1495
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1496
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1500
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1501
setting of dual 1502
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1506
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1507
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1508
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1510
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1512
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1513
dual 1514
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1518
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1519
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1521
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1524
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1525
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1526
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1530
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1535
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1536
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1537
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1538
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1539
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then 1540
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1541
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1542
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1543
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1544
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then 1545
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut set; 1546
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1547
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1548
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1549
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1550
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1551
connected. Then 1552
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1553
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1554
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1555
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1558
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1559
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1560
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1561
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1562
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1563
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1565
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1566
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1567
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1568
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1569
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1570
Then 1571
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1572
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1574
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1575
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1576
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1577
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1579
Then 1580
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1581
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1583
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1584
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1585
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1587
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1588
(ii) Γ = 1; 1589
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1590
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1591
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1593
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1594
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1595
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1596
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1597
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1598
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1599
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1600
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1601
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1603
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1604
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1605
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1607
bn
2c
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1610

bnc ; 1611
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1612
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1614
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1615
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1616
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF; 1617
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1618
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1619
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1620
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1621
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1622
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1623
SuperHyperSet. Then 1624
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1625
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF; 1626
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1627

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1628
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1629
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1631
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1632
SuperHyperSet. Then 1633
bn
2c
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF : (V, E); 1635
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1636

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1637
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1638
following statements hold; 1641
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1642
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is an 1643
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1644
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1645
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is a dual 1646
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1647
following statements hold; 1649
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1650
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is an 1651
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1652
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1653
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is a dual 1654
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1655
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1656
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1657
hold; 1658
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1659
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1660
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1661
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1663
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1665
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1666
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1667
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1668
hold; 1669
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1670
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1672
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1674
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1676
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1677
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1679
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1680
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1681
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1683
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1685
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1688
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1690
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1691
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1692
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1694
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1696
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1697
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1699
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1701
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1702
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1703
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1705
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1707
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1710
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1712
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1713
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1714
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1716
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1718
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1721
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1722
Recognition 1723
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1724
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1725
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1726
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1727
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1728
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1729
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1730
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1731
long-term Extreme function. 1732
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1733
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1734
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1735
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1736
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1737
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1738
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1739
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1740
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1741
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1742
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1743
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1745
find either the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut or the Extreme 1746
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1747
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1748
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1749
SuperHyperModel 1750
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1751
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1752
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1753
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1754
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1755
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1756
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1757
the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1758
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1759
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1760
SuperHyperModel 1761
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1762
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1763
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1764
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1765
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1766
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1768
is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1769
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1770
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1771
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1772
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme 1773
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut are defined on a real-world application, titled 1774
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1775
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1776
recognitions? 1777
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1778
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut? 1779
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1780
compute them? 1781
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1782
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut? 1783
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme 1784
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1785
and they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, are there else? 1786
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1787
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1788
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1789
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1790
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1791
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1792
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1793
highlighted. 1794
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1795
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1796
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1797
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1798
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1799
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, finds the convenient 1800
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1801
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1802
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1803
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1804
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, the new SuperHyperClasses 1805
and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the 1806
section on the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme 1807
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 1808
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 1809
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1810
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1811
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1812
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1813
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1814
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1815
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in the 1816
themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the 1817
embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
3. Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1818
(6), benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1819
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1820
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1821
Forms 1822
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1823
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1824
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1825
V 0 or E 0 is called 1826
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1827
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1828
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1829
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1830
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1831
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1832
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1833
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1834
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1835
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1836
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1837
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1838
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1839
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1840
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1842
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1843
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1844
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1845
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1846
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1847
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1848
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1850
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1851
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1852
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1853
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1854
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1855
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1856
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1857
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1858
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1859
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1861
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1862
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1863
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1864
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1865
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1866
Extreme coefficient; 1867
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1868
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1878
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1885
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1886
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1890
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1892
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1893
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1894
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1898
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1899
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1903
Extreme coefficient. 1912
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1916
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1917
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1918
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1919
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1920
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1922
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 1925
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1926
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1927
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1928
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1929
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1930


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). 1973
Then 1974
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 1975
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 1979
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1983
Then 1985
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 1986
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1994
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1995
Then 1996
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 1997
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2007
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2008
ESHB : (V, E). Then 2009
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 2010
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 2015
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2016
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2019
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2020
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2028

= {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 2031
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 2032

P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2048
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2049
Then, 2051
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 2052
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 2053
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2054

∃!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 2059
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2060
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2062
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2063
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 2064
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2065
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2066
Forms 2068
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2069
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2073
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2074
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2075
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2076
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2078
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2079
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2080
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2081
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2083
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2084
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2085
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2088
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2089
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2090
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2091
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2092
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2093
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2094
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2095
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2097
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2101
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2102
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2103
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2104
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2110
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2112
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2122
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2126
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2127
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2128
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2129
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2133
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2135
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2136
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2146
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2159
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2160
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2165
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. 2167
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2173


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 2217
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 2218
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2222
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2226
Then 2228

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

.
Proof. Let 2229
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2237
Then 2239
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 2240

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2250
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 2253
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 2258
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2259
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2262
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2271

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 2274
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2275
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2276

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2279
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2280
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. 2292
Then, 2294

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

.
Proof. Let 2295
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2296

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2300
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2301
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2302
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2303
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2308
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2309
Forms 2311
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2312
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2316
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2317
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2318
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2319
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2321
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2322
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2323
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2324
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2326
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2327
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2328
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2329
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2332
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2334
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2338
SuperHyperPerfect; 2339
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2340
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2342
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2346
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2347
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2348
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2349
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2355
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2357
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2367
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2368
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2374
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2375
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2376
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2379
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2381
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2382
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2383
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2392
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2405
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2411
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. 2419


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 2463
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 2464
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2468
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2472
Then 2474
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 2475
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2483
Then 2485
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2486

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2496
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 2499
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 2504
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2505
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2506
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2507
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2508
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2517

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 2520
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2521

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2525
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2526
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2527
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. 2538
Then, 2540
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2541
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2542

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2546
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2547
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2548
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2549
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2554
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2555
Forms 2557
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2558
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2562
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2563
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2564
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2565
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2567
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2568
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2569
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2570
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2572
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2573
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2574
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2575
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2578
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2580
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2584
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2585
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2587
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2591
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2592
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2593
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2594
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2600
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2602
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2612
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2616
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2617
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2618
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2619
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2623
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2625
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2626
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2636
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2649
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2655
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. 2663


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 2707
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 2708
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2712
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2716
Then 2718
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 2719
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. 2727
Then 2729
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 2730
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2740
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 2743
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2748
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2749
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2752
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2761

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 2764
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2765
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2766

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2769
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2770
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. 2782
Then, 2784
∗
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 2785
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2786

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2790
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2791
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2792
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2793
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2798
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2799
Forms 2801
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2802
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2806
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2807
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2808
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2809
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2811
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2812
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2813
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2814
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2816
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2817
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2818
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2819
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2822
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2824
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2825
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2826
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2827
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2829
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2830
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2833
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2834
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2835
SuperHyperConnected; 2837
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2838
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2839
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2841
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2846
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2848
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2849
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2858
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2862
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2863
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2865
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2866
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2870
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2871
SuperHyperConnected; 2873
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2874
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2875
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2876
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2877
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2884
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2885
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2897
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2898
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2899
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2900
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2901
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2902
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2903
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2904
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 2907
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2908
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2909
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2910
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2912


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 2976
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 2977
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 2981
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2985
Then 2987
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 2988
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 2991
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2996
Then 2998
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 2999
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3009
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 3012
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3017
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3018
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3021
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 3022
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3030
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 3033
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3034

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3038
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3039
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. 3051
Then, 3053
∗
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 3054
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3055

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3059
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3060
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3061
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3062
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3068
17 Background 3069
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3070
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3071
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3072
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3073
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3074
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3075
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3076
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3077
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3078
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3079
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3080
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3081
results based on initial background. 3082
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3083
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3084
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3085
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3086
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3087
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3088
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3089
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3090
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3091
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3092
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3093
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3094
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3095
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3096
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3097
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3098
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3099
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3100
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3101
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3102
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3103
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3104
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3105
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3106
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3107
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3108
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3109
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3110
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3111
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3112
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3113
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3114
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3115
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3116
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3117
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3118
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3119
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3120
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3121
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3122
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3123
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3124
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3125
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3126
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3127
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3128
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3129
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3130
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3131
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3132
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3133
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3134
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3135
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3136
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3137
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3138
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3139
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3140
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3141
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3142
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3143
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3144
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3145
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3146
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3147
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3148
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3149
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3150
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3151
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3152
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3153
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3154
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3155
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3156
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3157
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3158
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [129] by Henry Garrett 3159
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3160
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3161
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [130] by Henry Garrett 3162
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3163
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3164
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3165
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3166
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3168
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3169
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [135] by 3170
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3171
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3172
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [136] by Henry 3173
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3174
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3175
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [139] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3176
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3177
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [142] by Henry 3178
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3179
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3180
in Ref. [143] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3181
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3182
Ref. [144] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3183
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3185
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3186
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [146] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3187
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3188
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3189
in Ref. [147] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3190
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3191
in Ref. [158] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3192
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3193
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [159] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3194
and [4–159], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3195
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3196
books at [160–252]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3197
readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [253, 254]. 3198
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3199
proposed as book in Ref. [241] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3200
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3201
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3202
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3203
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3204
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3205
proposed as book in Ref. [242] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3206
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3207
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3208
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3209
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3210
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3211
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3212
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3213
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3214
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3215
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–159] 3216
alongside scientific research books at [160–252]. Two popular scientific research books 3217
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3218
science is on [253, 254]. 3219
References 3220
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3221
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3222
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3223
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3224
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3225
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3226
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3227
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3228
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3229
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3230
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3231
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3232
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3233
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3234
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3235
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3236
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3237
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3238
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3239
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3240
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3241
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3242
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3243
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3244
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3245
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3246
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3247
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3248
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3249
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3250
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3251
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3252
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3253
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3254
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3255
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3256
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3257
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3258
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3259
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3260
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3261
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3262
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3263
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3264
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3265
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3266
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3267
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3268
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3269
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3270
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3271
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3272
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3273
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3274
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3275
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3276
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3277
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3278
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3279
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3280
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3281
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3282
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3283
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3284
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3285
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3286
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3287
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3289
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3290
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3291
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3292
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3293
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3294
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3296
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3300
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3301
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3302
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3303
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3304
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3305
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3306
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3307
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3308
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3309
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3310
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3311
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3312
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3313
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3314
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3315
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3316
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3317
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3318
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3319
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3320
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3321
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3322
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3324
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3325
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3326
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3327
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790052). 3328
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3330
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3331
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3332
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3333
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3336
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3337
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3338
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3339
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3342
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3343
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3345
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3347
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3348
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3349
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3351
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3354
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3355
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3356
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3357
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3358
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3360
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3363
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3364
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3366
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3367
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3369
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3372
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3374
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3375
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3376
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3378
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3381
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3384
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3385
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3387
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3390
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3392
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3394
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3396
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3398
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3399
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3402
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3404
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3405
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3408
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3410
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3412
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3414
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3416
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3417
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3420
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3421
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3423
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3426
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3428
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3430
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3432
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3433
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3435
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3437
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3439
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3441
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3442
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3443
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3444
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3445
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3447
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3448
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3449
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3450
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3453
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3455
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3456
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3459
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3460
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3461
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3462
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3465
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3467
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3469
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3471
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3472
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3473
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3474
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3477
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3478
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3479
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3480
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3483
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3484
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3485
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3486
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3489
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3490
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3491
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3492
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3495
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3496
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3497
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3498
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3501
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3502
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3503
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3504
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3506
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3507
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3510
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3511
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3512
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3513
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3516
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3517
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3518
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3519
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3522
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3524
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3525
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3528
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3529
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3530
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3531
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3533
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3534
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3537
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3538
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3540
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3542
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3543
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3545
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3546
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3548
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3549
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3550
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3551
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3552
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3553
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3554
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3555
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3557
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3558
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3559
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3560
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3561
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3562
106. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3563
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3564
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3565
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3566
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3569
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3570
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3573
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3574
109. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3575
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3577
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3578
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3581
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3582
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3585
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3586
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3587
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3588
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3589
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3590
113. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3591
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3592
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3593
114. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3594
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3595
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3596
115. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3597
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3598
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3599
116. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3600
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3601
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3602
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3603
117. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3604
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3605
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3606
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3607
118. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3608
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3609
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3610
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3611
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3612
119. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3613
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3614
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3615
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3616
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3617
120. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3618
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3619
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3620
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3621
121. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3622
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3623
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3624
122. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3625
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3626
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3628
123. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3629
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3630
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3631
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3632
124. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3633
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3634
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3635
125. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3636
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3637
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3638
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3639
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3640
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3641
126. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3642
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3643
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3644
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3645
127. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3646
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3647
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3648
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3649
128. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3650
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3651
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3652
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3653
129. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3654
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3655
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3656
130. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3657
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3658
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3659
131. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3661
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3662
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3663
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3664
132. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3665
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3666
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3667
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3668
133. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3669
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3670
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3671
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3672
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3674
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3675
135. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3676
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3677
136. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3679
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3680
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3681
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3686
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3690
139. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3691
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3692
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3693
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3694
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3697
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3699
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3700
142. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3701
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3702
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3705
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3706
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3708
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3709
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3712
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3713
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3715
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3716
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3719
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3720
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3722
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3723
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3725
150. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3727
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3730
151. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3732
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3735
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3742
154. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3743
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3744
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3745
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3746
155. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3747
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3748
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3749
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3750
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3753
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3754
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3757
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3758
158. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3759
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3760
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3761
159. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3762
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3764
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3765
160. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3766
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790728). 3767
161. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3768
162. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3770
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3771
163. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3772
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3773
164. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3774
165. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3776
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3777
166. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3778
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3779
167. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3780
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3781
168. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3782
169. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3784
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3785
170. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3786
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3787
171. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3788
172. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3790
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3791
173. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3792
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3793
174. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3794
175. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3796
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3797
176. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3798
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3799
177. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3800
178. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3802
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3803
179. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3804
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3805
180. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3806
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3807
181. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3808
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3809
182. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3810
183. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3812
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3813
184. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3814
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3815
185. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3816
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3817
186. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3818
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3819
187. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3820
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3821
188. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3822
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3823
189. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3824
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3825
190. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3826
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3827
191. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3828
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3829
192. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3830
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3831
193. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3832
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3833
194. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3834
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3835
195. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3836
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3837
196. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3838
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3839
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3840
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3841
198. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3842
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3843
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3844
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3845
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3846
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3847
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3848
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3849
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3850
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3851
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3852
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3853
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3854
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3855
205. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3856
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3857
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3858
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3859
207. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3860
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3861
208. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3862
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3863
209. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3864
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3865
210. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3866
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3867
211. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3868
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3869
212. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3870
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3871
213. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3872
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3873
214. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3874
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3875
215. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3876
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3877
216. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3878
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3879
217. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3880
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3881
218. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3882
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3883
219. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3884
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3885
220. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3886
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3887
221. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3888
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3889
222. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3890
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3891
223. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3892
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3893
224. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3894
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3895
225. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3896
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3897
226. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3898
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3899
227. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3900
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3901
228. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3902
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3903
229. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3904
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3905
230. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3906
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3907
231. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3908
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3909
232. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3910
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3911
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3912
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3913
234. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3914
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3915
235. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3916
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3917
236. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3918
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3919
237. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3920
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3921
238. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3922
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3923
239. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3924
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3925
240. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3926
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3927
241. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3928
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3929
242. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3930
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3931
243. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3932
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3933
244. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3934
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3935
245. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3936
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3937
246. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3938
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3939
247. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3940
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3941
248. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3942
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3943
249. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3945
250. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3946
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3947
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3948
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3949
252. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3950
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3951
253. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3953
254. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3955
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Hammy by Hyper Hamper of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 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 Hammy by Hyper Hamper of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In

Preprint · April 2023

414 PUBLICATIONS 9,140 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 2

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 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-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10

(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11

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

is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 13

called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 21

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28

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

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 30

if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 31

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 33

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34

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

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36

conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 39

if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 40

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 42

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 48

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 52

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 53

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

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 55

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

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 57

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 58

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 59

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 60

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 61

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 64

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 65

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 66

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 67

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 68

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 69