New Ideas On Super Decompensation by Hyper Decompress of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369737397
New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Hamiltonian-

Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7793410
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
415 PUBLICATIONS 9,328 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 02 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 Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2
Of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of 3
Cancer With (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-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10
(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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-Decomposition if the following expression 13
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 14
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 16
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 19
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 24
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 25
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 26
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) 27
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 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-Decomposition 30
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 31
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 45
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 46
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 47
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 48
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 49
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 55
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 56
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 57
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 58
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 60
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 61
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 67
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 68
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 69
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 70
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 72
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 73
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 79
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 80
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 81
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 83
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 84
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 89
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 90
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 93
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 99
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 100
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 101
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 104
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 105
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 111
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 112
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 113
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 114
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 115
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 116
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 117
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 118
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Two different types of 119
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 120
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 121
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 122
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 123
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 124
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 125
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 126
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 127
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 128
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 129
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 130
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 131
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 132
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 133
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 134
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 135
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 136
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 137
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 138
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 139
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 140
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 141
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 142
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 143
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 144
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal Neutrosophic of 145
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 146
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 147
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 148
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 149
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 150
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 151
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 152
type-results to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. For 153
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to 154
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The 155
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 156
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 157
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s redefined a 158
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, 159
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 160
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 161
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 162
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 163
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 164
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 165
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 166
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 167
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 168
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 169
have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition until the 170
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then it’s officially called a 171
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 172
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . There are some instances about the clarifications 173
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. These two 174
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 175
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 176
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 177
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 178
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 179
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 180
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 181
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 182
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 183
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition are redefined to a 184
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s 185
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 186
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 188
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 189
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 190
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 191
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 192
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 193
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 194
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 195
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” where it’s the strongest [the 196
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition amid 197
the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 198
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition .] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . A graph is 199
a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 200
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 201
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 202
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 203
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 204
two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 205
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one 206
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 207
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 208
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 209
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 210
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 211
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 212
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 213
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 214
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, 215
The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 216
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 217
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 218
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 219
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 220
SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 221
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 222
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 223
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 224
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 225
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 226
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 227
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 228
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 229
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 230
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 231
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 233
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 234
either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition or the strongest 235
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 236
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, called SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 237
and the strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 238
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond that 239
in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but 240
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any 241
style of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 242
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 243
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 244
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition theory, 245
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 246
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 247
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 248
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 249
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 250
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 251
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 252
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 253
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 254
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 255
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 256
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 257
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 258
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 259
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 260
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 261
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 262
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 263
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 264
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 265
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 266
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 267
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 268
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 269
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 270
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 271
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 272
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 273
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 274
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 275
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 276
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 277
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 278
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 279
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 280
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 281
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 282
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 283
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 284
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 285
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 286
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 287
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 288
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 289
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 290
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 291
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 292
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 293
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 294
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 295
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition or the Extreme 296
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general 297
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 298
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 299
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 300
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 301
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 302
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 303
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 304
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or the 305
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 306
of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups 307
of group of cells? 308
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 309
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 310
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 311
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 312
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” 313
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 314
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 315
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 316
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 317
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 318
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 319
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 320
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 321
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 322
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 323
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 324
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 325
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 326
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 327
are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Extreme 328
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 329
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 330
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 331
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 332
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 333
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 334
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 335
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 336
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 337
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 338
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 339
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 340
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 341
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, 342
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There 343
are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense 344
about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 345
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ 346
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 347
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 348
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 349
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 350
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 351
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 352
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 353
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 354
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 355
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 356
Research On the Redeemed Ways 357
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 358
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [161],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 359
Set](Ref. [161],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 360
(NSHG)](Ref. [161],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 361
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [161], 362
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 363
(NSHG)](Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 364
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [161],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 365
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [161],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 366
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [161]. 367
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 368
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 369
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [161],Definition 2.1,p.1). 370
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x; then the Neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 371
+
]− 0, 1 [. 372
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [161],Definition 2.2,p.2). 373
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x. A single valued Neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by
truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a
falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1].
A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [161],Definition 374
2.5,p.2). 375
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 376
pair S = (V, E), where 377
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 378
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 379
1, 2, . . . , n); 380
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 381
V; 382
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 383
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 384
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 385
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 386
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 387
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 388
(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 . 389
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 390
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 391
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 392
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 393
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 394
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 395
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 396
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 397
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 398
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 399
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 400
(Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3). 401
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 402
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 403
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 404
characterized as follow-up items. 405
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 406
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 407
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 408
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 409
HyperEdge; 410
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 411
SuperEdge; 412
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 413
SuperHyperEdge. 414
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 415
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 416
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [161], Definition 2.7, p.3). 417
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 418
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 419
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 420
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 421
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 422
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 423
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)). 424
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 425
pair S = (V, E), where 426
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 427
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 428
1, 2, . . . , n); 429
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 430
V; 431
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 432
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 433
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 434
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 435
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 436
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 437
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 438
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 439
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 440
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 441
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 442
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 443
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 444
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 445
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 446
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 447
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 448
(Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3). 449
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 450
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 451
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 452
characterized as follow-up items. 453
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 454
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 455
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 456
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 457
HyperEdge; 458
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 459
SuperEdge; 460
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 461
SuperHyperEdge. 462
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 463
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 464
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 465
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 466
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 467
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 468
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 469
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 470
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 471
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 472
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 473
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 474
given SuperHyperEdges; 475
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 476
SuperHyperEdges; 477
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 478
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 479
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 480
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 481
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 482
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 483
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 484
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 485
common SuperVertex. 486
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 487
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 488
of following conditions hold: 489
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 490
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 491
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 492
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 493
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 494
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 495
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 496
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 497
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 498
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 499
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 500
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. 501
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 502
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 503
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 504
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 505
SuperHyperPath . 506
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 507
(Ref. [161],Definition 5.3,p.7). 508
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 509
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 510
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 511
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 512
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 513
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 514
(NSHE)). (Ref. [161],Definition 5.4,p.7). 515
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 516
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 517
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 518
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 519
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 520
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 521
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 522
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 524
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 525
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 527
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 528
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 529
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 530
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 531
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 532
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 534
either V 0 or E 0 is called 535
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 536
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 537
criteria holds 538
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 539
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 540
criteria holds 541
0
∀E ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 542
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 543
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 544
criteria holds 545
0
∀V ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 546
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 547
criteria holds 548
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 549
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 550
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 551
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 554
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 555
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 557
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 558
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 563
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 564
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 565
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 566
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 567
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 568
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 573
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 574
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 577
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 578
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 584
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 585
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 586
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 587
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 589
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 590
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 591
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 597
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 598
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 599
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 600
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 601
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 602
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 603
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 604
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 609
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 610
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 611
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 613
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 614
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 619
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 620
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 624
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 630
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 631
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 632
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 633
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 635
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 636
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 637
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 643
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 644
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 645
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 646
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 647
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 648
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 649
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 650
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 651
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of 652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the following 653
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 654
s∈S: 655
|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 656
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 657
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic 658
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the 659
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 660
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 661
|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. 662
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 663
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 664
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 665
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 666
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 667
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 668
assign to the values. 669
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 670
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 671
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 672
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 673
understandable. 674
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 675
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 676
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 677
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 678
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 679
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 680
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 681
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 682
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 683
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 684
make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly 685
understandable. 686
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 687
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 688
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 689
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 690
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 691

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 693
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 694
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 695
Forms 696
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 697
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 698
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 699
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 700
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 701
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 702
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 704
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 705
s-independent criteria 706
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. 707
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 708
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 709
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any k-function 711
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 712
2-function Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Extreme Variable. 713
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 714
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 715
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 717
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 718
Expectation criteria 719
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 720
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme number is called 722
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 723
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). 724
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let m and n propose special 725
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 726
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 727
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 728
independently with probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] 729
and H := G[S]. 730
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: 731
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
732
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 733
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of 734
n points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 735
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 736
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 737
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 738
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 739
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 740
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 741
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 742
2 3
l < 32n /k . 743
Theorem 4.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 744
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of 745
n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 746
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 747
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 748
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 749
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 750
i = 0n−1 ni = n
P
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 751
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
752
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 753
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 754
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 755
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 756
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 757
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 758
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 759
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 760
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 761
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 762
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 763
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 764
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 765
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. 766
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 767
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 768
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 769
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 770
Proof. 771
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 772
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 773
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 774
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph in 776
Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 777
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 778
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 779
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme 780
SuperHyperGraph G. 781
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 782
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 783
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 784
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 785
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: 786
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 787
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 788
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 789
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 790
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 791
number at most k. 792
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 793
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 795
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 796
Variance criteria 797
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be an 799
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 800
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be an Extreme Variable and 802
let t be a positive real number. Then 803
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
804
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be an 806
Extreme Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 807
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 808
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 810
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 811
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 812
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 814
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 815
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 816
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 817
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. As in the proof of related Theorem, 819
the result is straightforward. 820
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 822
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 823
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 824
or 825
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 826
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 828
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 829
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 831
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 832
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 833
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 834
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 835
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 836
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Extreme 838
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 839
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 840
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a 842
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 843
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 844
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 845
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 847
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 848
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 849
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 850
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 851
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 852
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 853
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 854
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 855
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 856
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 857
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 858
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
859
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 862
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 863
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 864
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 865
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 866
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 867
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 868

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
= z3.

869
straightforward. 872

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 }}.
= z3.
873

= {{E4 }, {E5 }}.
= 2z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , {N }, {F }}}.
= z5.


877

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.

881

= {{Eii=110 , Ejj=2232 , E12 }, . . .}.
= az 22 .
= {{Vi }22
i=1 }.
= z 22 .
885

= {{E15 , E13 , E16 , E14 , E17 , E12 }, . . .}.
= z6.
= {{Vi }14
i=1 }.
= z 14 .

889

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
893

= {{Eii=110 , Ejj=2223 , E12 }, . . .}.
= az 13
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
= az 22



897
begineqnarray* C(NSHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition

={E1 , E6 , E2 , E7 , E3 , E4 }.
C(NSHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
=z6 .
C(NSHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
={Vi }14i=1 .
C(NSHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
=z14 . 901
On the Figure (11), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 902

= {{E1 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, {E1 , E6 , E3 , E7 }, {E1 , E7 , E3 , E8 }}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi }6i=1 }.
= z6.
905




= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
909

= {{E9 , E6 , E3 , E7 }, {E9 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, {E9 , E7 , E3 , E8 }}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi }6i=1 }.
= z6.
913


= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
917

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
921




= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
925

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
929


= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
933

= {{Eii=112 }}.
= z 12 .
= {{Vi }ai=1 }.
= za.
937




= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
941

= {{E1 , E2 }}.
= z2.
= {VE2 }.
= z 10 .

945

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
949
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 950
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 951
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 952
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 953
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 954
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 955

Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 956
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 957
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 958
any given Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 959
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 960
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 961
an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 962
some of them but not all of them. 963
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-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 964
is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 965
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 966
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 967
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 968
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 969
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 970
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme 971
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 972
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with the least Extreme 973
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 974
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 975
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 976
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the 977
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is 978
the cardinality of 979
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1

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

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

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

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality
of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition.
It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to
deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and
cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes,
are well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the
examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 980
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 981
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 982
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 983
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 984
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 985
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 986
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 987
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition decorates the

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 988
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 989
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 990
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 991
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-Decomposition. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included
in an Extreme style-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition.

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, 992
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
993
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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-Decomposition, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 994
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 995
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 996
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 997
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 998
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but 999
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 1000
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1001
contained in an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1002
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1003
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 1004
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1005
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1006
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 1007
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1008
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1009
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1010
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1011
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1012
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme 1013
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition where the Extreme completion of the Extreme 1014
incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an Extreme embedded 1015
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and 1016
quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets 1017
only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting 1018
is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme 1019
SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two 1020
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme 1021
style of the embedded Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The interior types of the 1022
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 1023
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1024
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 1025
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 1026
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus Extreme 1027
exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 1028
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 1029
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s 1030
the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside 1031
more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. 1032
One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 1033
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 1034
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme 1035
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with the exclusion 1036
of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1037
and with other terms, the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with the inclusion of all 1038
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme 1039
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme 1040
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1041
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1042
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition minus 1043
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1044
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1045
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1046
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1047
The main definition of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition has two titles. an 1048
Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1049
Extreme R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any 1050
Extreme number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with that 1051
quasi-maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1052
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1053
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1054
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decompositions for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1055
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1056
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme 1057
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, again and more in the operations of collecting all the 1058
Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decompositions acted on the all possible used formations of 1059
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number 1060
is 1061
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1062
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decompositions. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1063
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1064
and an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1065
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1066
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1067
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1068
technical definition for the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1069
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1070
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1071
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1072
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1073

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1074


1075
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1076

1077

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1078
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1079
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1080
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1081
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1082
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” since “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” happens 1083
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial 1084
framework and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens 1085
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial 1086
framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the 1087
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1088
“Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, and 1089
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” are up. 1090
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1091
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1092
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the new terms 1093
are up. 1094

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1095
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1096
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1097
And with go back to initial structure, 1098


1099
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1100

1101

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1102
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if 1103
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1104
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1105
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1106
them. 1107
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1108
are coming up. 1109
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1110
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1111
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-Decomposition is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is an Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 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-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1112
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1113
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1114
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1115
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1116
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-Decomposition. There isn’t only less
than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1117
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1118
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1119
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1120
“Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” 1121
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1122
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1123
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-Decomposition amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition,
are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1124
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-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1125
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1126
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1127
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1128
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1129
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1130
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1131
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1132
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1133
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1134
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1135
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with the 1136
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1137
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1138
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1139
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1140
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme 1141
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1142
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1143
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1144
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1145
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1146
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1147
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such 1148
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1149
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1150
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1151
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1152
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1153
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1154
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1155
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1156
VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1157
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes 1158
only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1159
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1160
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1161
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1162
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1163
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1164
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1165
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and 1166
all exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1167
where there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s 1168
all Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1169
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1170
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1171
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither 1172
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme 1173
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1174
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Extreme 1175
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1176
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1177
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1178
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1179
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1180
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1182
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1183
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1184
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1185
non-obvious Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1186
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is an Extreme 1187
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1188
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1189
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1190
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1191
Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet 1192
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1193
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1194
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1195
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1196
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1197
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1198
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1199
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1200
and it’s an Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1201
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1203
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1204
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1205
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1206
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme ,
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1207
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1208
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, not: 1209
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1210
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1211
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1212
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1213
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ” 1214
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1215
Extreme Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition , 1216
is only and only 1217
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1218
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1219
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1220
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1221
SuperHyperClasses. 1222
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1223

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1224
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1225
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). 1226
There’s a new way to redefine as 1227
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 1228
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1229
The latter is straightforward. 1230
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1231
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1232
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1233
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1234
Then 1235

= {{E ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |EN SHG | .
= {{V ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG | .
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
Proof. Let 1236
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1237
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). 1238

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )| ≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 1240
Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1243
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1244
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.7)
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme 1245
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1247

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1248
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1249
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1250
a new way to redefine as 1251

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1255
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1256
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1257
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1258
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1259
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1260
Then 1261

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

min
= az |PN SHG | .
|V
N SHG |
= {{Vi }i=1 }.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1262
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
1263
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). 1264

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1268
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1269
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. 1270
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1271
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1272
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition taken from a connected Extreme 1273
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1274
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1275
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1277
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1278
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1279
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1280
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1281
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1282
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1283
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1284

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

min
= az |PN SHG | .
|V
N SHG |
= {{Vi }i=1 }.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1285
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
1286
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1288

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1291
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1292
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. 1293
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1294
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1296
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1297
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1300
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1301
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1302
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1303
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1304
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1305
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1307
Then, 1308

= {{Ei , Ei∗ , Ej∗ }, . . .}.
i=1|EN SHG |−1

= z |EN SHG |+1 .
|V
N SHG |
= {{Vi }i=1 }.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1309
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
1310
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1312

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1315
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1316
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. The 1317
unique embedded SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition proposes some longest 1318
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1319
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1321
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1322
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1323
of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme 1324
SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1325
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1326
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1327
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Extreme 1328
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and the Extreme 1329
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1330
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1331
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1332
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1333
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Decomposition
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1334
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1335
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1336
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1337
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and 1338
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition coincide. 1339
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1341
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1342
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1344
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1345
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1347
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1348
is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1349
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme 1350
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1351
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1352
letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is its 1353
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1354
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1355
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1356
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1357
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1358
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1359
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1363
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1364
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1366
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1367
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1368
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1369
its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1370
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1374
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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-Decomposition; 1378
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1379
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1380
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1381
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1382
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1383
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1384
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1385
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1386
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1387
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1388
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1389
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1390
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1391
independent SuperHyperSet is 1392
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1393
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1394
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1395
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1396
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1397
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1398
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1399
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1400
is a maximal 1401
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1402
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1403
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1404
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1405
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1406
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 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-Decomposition; 1411
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1412
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1413
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1414
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1415
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1416
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1417
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1419
the number of 1420
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1421
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1422
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1423
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1424
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1425
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1426
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1427
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1428
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1430
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1431
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1432
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1433
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1434
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1435
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1436
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1437
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1440
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1441
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1442
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1443
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1447
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1448
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1449
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1453
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1454
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1455
is a 1456
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1460
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1461
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1462
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1465
number of 1466
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1470
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1471
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1472
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1474
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1475
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1476
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1478
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1479
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1483
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1484
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1485
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1486
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1487
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1488
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1489
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1490
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1494
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1496
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1498
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1499
setting of dual 1500
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1504
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1505
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1506
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1508
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1510
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1511
dual 1512
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1516
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1517
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1518
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1521
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1522
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1523
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1529
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1531
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1532
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1533
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1534
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1535
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1536
such that 1537
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1538
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1539
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1540
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1541
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition set; 1542
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1543
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1544
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1545
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1546
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1547
connected. Then 1548
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1549
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1550
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1551
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1552
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1554
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1555
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1556
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1557
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1558
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1559
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1561
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1562
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1563
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1564
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1565
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1566
Then 1567
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1568
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1570
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1571
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1572
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1573
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1575
Then 1576
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1577
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1579
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1580
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1581
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1583
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1584
(ii) Γ = 1; 1585
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1586
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1587
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1589
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1590
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1591
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1592
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1593
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1594
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1595
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1596
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1597
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1599
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1600
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1601
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1603
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1604
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1606

bnc ; 1607
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1608
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1610
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1611
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1612
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1613
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1614
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1615
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1616
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1617
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1618
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1619
SuperHyperSet. Then 1620
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1621
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1622
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1623
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1624
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1625
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1627
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1628
SuperHyperSet. Then 1629
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1630
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1631
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1632

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1633
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1634
following statements hold; 1637
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1638
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1639
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1640
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1641
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1642
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1643
following statements hold; 1645
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1646
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1647
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1648
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1649
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1650
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1651
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1652
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1653
hold; 1654
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1655
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1656
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1657
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1659
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1661
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1662
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1663
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1664
hold; 1665
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1666
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1668
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1670
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1672
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1673
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1675
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1676
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1677
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1679
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1681
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1684
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1686
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1687
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1688
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1690
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1692
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1693
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1695
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1697
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1698
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1699
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1701
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1703
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1706
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1708
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1709
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1710
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1712
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1714
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1717
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1718
Recognition 1719
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1720
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1721
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1722
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1723
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1724
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1725
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1726
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1727
long-term Extreme function. 1728
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1729
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1730
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1731
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1732
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1733
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1734
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1735
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1736
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1737
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1738
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1739
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1741
find either the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition or the Extreme 1742
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Extreme Extreme 1743
SuperHyperModels. 1744
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1745
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1746
SuperHyperModel 1747
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1748
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1749
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1750
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1751
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1752
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1753
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1754
the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1755
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-Decomposition
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1756
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1757
SuperHyperModel 1758
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1759
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1760
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1761
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1762
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1763
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1765
is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1766
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1767
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1768
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1769
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme 1770
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled 1771
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1772
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1773
recognitions? 1774
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1775
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1776
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1777
compute them? 1778
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1779
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1780
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme 1781
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1782
and they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, are there else? 1783
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1784
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1785
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1786
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1787
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1788
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1789
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1790
highlighted. 1791
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1792
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1793
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1794
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1795
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1796
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1797
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1798
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1799
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1800
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1801
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses 1802
and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the 1803
section on the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme 1804
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 1805
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 1806
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1807
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1808
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1809
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1810
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1811
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1812
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in the 1813
themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the 1814
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-Decomposition
3. Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1815
(6), benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1816
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1817
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1818
Forms 1819
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1820
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1821
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1822
V 0 or E 0 is called 1823
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1824
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1825
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1826
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1827
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1828
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1829
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1830
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1831
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1832
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1833
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1834
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1835
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1836
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1837
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1839
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1840
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1841
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1842
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1843
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1844
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1845
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1847
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1848
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1849
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1850
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1851
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1852
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1853
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1854
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1855
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1856
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1858
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1859
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1860
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1861
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1862
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1863
Extreme coefficient; 1864
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1865
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1875
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1882
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1883
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1887
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1889
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1890
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1891
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1895
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1896
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1900
Extreme coefficient. 1909
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1913
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1914
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1915
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1916
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1917
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1919
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 1922
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1923
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1924
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1925
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1926
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1927


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). 1970
Then 1971
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 1972
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 1976
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1980
Then 1982
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 1983
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1991
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1992
Then 1993
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 1994
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2004
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2005
ESHB : (V, E). Then 2006
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 2007
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 2012
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2013
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2016
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2017
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2025

= {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 2028
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 2029

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), 2045
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2046
Then, 2048
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 2049
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 2050
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2051

∃!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 2056
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2057
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2059
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2060
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 2061
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2062
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2063
Forms 2065
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2066
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2070
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2071
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2072
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2073
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2075
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2076
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2077
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2078
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2080
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2081
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2082
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2085
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2086
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2087
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2088
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2089
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2090
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2091
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2092
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2094
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2098
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2099
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2100
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2101
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2107
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2109
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2119
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2123
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2124
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2125
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2126
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2130
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2132
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2133
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2143
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2156
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2157
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2162
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. 2164
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2170


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 2214
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 2215
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2219
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2223
Then 2225

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

.
Proof. Let 2226
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2234
Then 2236
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 2237

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2247
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 2250
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 2255
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2256
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2259
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2268

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 2271
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2272
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2273

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2276
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2277
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. 2289
Then, 2291

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

.
Proof. Let 2292
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2293

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2297
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2298
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2299
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2300
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2305
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2306
Forms 2308
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2309
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2313
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2314
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2315
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2316
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2318
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2319
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2320
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2321
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2323
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2324
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2325
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2326
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2329
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2331
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2335
SuperHyperPerfect; 2336
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2337
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2339
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2343
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2344
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2345
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2346
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2352
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2354
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2364
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2365
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2371
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2372
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2373
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2376
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2378
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2379
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2380
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2389
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2402
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2408
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. 2416


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 2460
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 2461
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2465
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2469
Then 2471
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 2472
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2480
Then 2482
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2483

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2493
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 2496
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 2501
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2502
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2503
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2504
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2505
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2514

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 2517
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2518

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2522
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2523
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2524
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. 2535
Then, 2537
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2538
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2539

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2543
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2544
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2545
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2546
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2551
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2552
Forms 2554
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2555
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2559
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2560
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2561
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2562
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2564
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2565
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2566
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2567
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2569
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2570
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2571
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2572
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2575
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2577
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2581
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2582
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2584
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2588
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2589
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2590
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2591
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2597
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2599
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2609
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2613
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2614
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2615
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2616
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2620
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2622
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2623
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2633
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2646
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2652
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3052

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3056
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3057
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3058
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3059
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3065
17 Background 3066
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3067
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3068
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3069
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3070
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3071
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3072
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3073
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3074
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3075
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3076
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3077
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3078
results based on initial background. 3079
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3080
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3081
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3082
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3083
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3084
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3085
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3086
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3087
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3088
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3089
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3090
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3091
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3092
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3093
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3094
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3095
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3096
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3097
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3098
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3099
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3100
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3101
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3102
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3103
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3104
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3105
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3106
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3107
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3108
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3109
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3110
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3111
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3112
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3113
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3114
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3115
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3116
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3117
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3118
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3119
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3120
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3121
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3122
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3123
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3124
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3125
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3126
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3127
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3128
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3129
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3130
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3131
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3132
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3133
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3134
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3135
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3136
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3137
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3138
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3139
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3140
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3141
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3142
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3143
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3144
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3145
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3146
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3147
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3148
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3149
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3150
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3151
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3152
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3153
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3154
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3155
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett 3156
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3157
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3158
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett 3159
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3160
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3161
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [133] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3162
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3163
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [134] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3165
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3166
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [137] by 3167
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3168
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3169
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [138] by Henry 3170
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3171
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3172
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [141] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3173
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3174
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [144] by Henry 3175
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3176
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3177
in Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3178
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3179
Ref. [146] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3180
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [147] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3182
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3183
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [148] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3184
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3185
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3186
in Ref. [149] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3187
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3188
in Ref. [160] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3189
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3190
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [161] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3191
and [4–161], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3192
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3193
books at [162–255]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3194
readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [256, 257]. 3195
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3196
proposed as book in Ref. [244] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3197
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3198
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3199
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3200
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3201
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3202
proposed as book in Ref. [245] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3203
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3204
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3205
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3206
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3207
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3208
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3209
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3210
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3211
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3212
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–161] 3213
alongside scientific research books at [162–255]. Two popular scientific research books 3214
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3215
science is on [256, 257]. 3216
References 3217
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3218
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3219
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3220
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3221
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3222
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3223
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3224
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3225
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3226
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3227
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3228
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3229
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3230
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3231
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3232
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3233
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3234
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3235
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3236
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3237
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3238
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3239
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3240
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3241
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3242
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3243
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3244
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3245
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3246
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3247
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3248
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3249
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3250
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3251
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3252
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3253
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3254
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3255
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3256
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3257
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3258
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3259
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3260
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3261
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3262
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3263
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3264
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3265
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3266
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3267
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3268
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3269
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3270
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3271
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3272
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3273
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3274
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3275
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3276
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3277
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3278
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3279
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3280
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3281
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3282
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3283
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3284
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3286
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3287
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3288
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3289
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3290
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3291
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3293
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3297
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3298
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3299
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3300
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3301
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3302
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3303
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3304
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3305
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3306
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3307
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3308
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3309
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3310
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3311
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3312
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3313
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3314
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3315
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3316
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3317
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3318
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3319
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3321
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3322
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3323
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3324
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791982). 3325
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3327
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3328
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3329
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3330
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3333
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3334
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3335
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3336
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3339
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3340
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3341
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3342
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3345
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3346
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3348
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3350
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3351
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3352
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3354
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3357
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3358
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3359
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3360
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3361
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3363
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3366
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3367
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3369
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3370
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3372
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3375
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3377
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3378
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3379
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3381
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3384
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3387
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3388
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3390
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3393
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3395
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3397
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3399
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3401
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3402
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3405
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3407
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3408
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3411
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3413
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3415
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3417
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3419
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3420
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3423
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3424
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3426
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3429
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3431
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3433
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3435
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3436
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3438
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3440
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3442
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3444
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3445
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3446
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3447
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3448
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3450
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3451
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3452
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3453
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3456
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3458
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3459
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3462
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3463
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3464
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3465
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3468
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3470
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3472
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3474
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3475
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3476
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3477
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3480
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3481
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3482
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3483
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3486
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3487
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3488
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3489
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3492
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3493
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3494
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3495
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3498
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3499
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3500
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3501
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3504
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3505
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3506
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3507
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3509
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3510
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3513
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3514
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3515
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3516
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3519
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3520
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3521
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3522
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3525
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3527
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3528
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3531
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3532
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3533
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3534
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3536
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3537
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3540
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3541
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3543
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3545
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3546
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3548
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3549
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3551
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3552
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3553
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3554
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3555
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3556
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3557
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3558
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3560
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3561
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3562
107. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3563
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3564
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3565
108. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3567
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3568
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3569
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3572
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3573
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3576
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3577
111. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3578
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3580
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3581
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3584
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3585
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3588
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3589
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3590
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3591
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3592
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3593
115. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3594
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3595
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3596
116. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3597
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3598
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3599
117. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3600
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3601
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3602
118. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3603
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3604
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3605
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3606
119. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3607
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3608
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3609
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3610
120. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3611
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3612
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3613
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3614
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3615
121. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3616
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3617
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3618
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3619
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3620
122. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3621
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3622
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3623
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3624
123. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3625
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3626
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3627
124. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3628
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3629
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3631
125. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3632
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3633
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3634
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3635
126. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3636
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3637
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3638
127. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3639
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3640
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3641
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3642
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3643
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3644
128. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3645
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3646
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3647
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3648
129. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3649
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3650
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3651
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3652
130. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3653
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3654
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3655
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3656
131. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3657
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3658
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3659
132. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3660
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3661
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3662
133. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3664
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3665
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3666
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3667
134. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3668
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3669
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3670
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3671
135. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3672
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3673
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3674
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3675
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3677
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3678
137. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3679
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3680
138. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3682
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3683
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3684
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3689
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3693
141. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3694
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3695
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3696
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3697
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3700
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3702
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3703
144. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3704
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3705
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3708
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3709
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3711
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3712
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3715
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3716
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3718
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3719
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3722
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3723
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3725
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3726
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3728
152. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3730
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3733
153. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3735
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3738
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3745
156. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3746
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3747
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3748
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3749
157. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3750
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3751
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3752
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3753
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3756
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3757
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3760
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3761
160. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3762
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3763
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3764
161. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3765
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3766
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3767
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3768
162. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3769
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7792307). 3770
163. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3771
164. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3773
165. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3775
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3776
166. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3777
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3778
167. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3779
168. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3781
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3782
169. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3783
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3784
170. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3785
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3786
171. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3787
172. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3789
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3790
173. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3791
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3792
174. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3793
175. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3795
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3796
176. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3797
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3798
177. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3799
178. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3801
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3802
179. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3803
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3804
180. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3805
181. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3807
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3808
182. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3809
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3810
183. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3811
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3812
184. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3813
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3814
185. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3815
186. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3817
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3818
187. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3819
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3820
188. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3821
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3822
189. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3823
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3824
190. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3825
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3826
191. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3827
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3828
192. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3829
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3830
193. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3831
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3832
194. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3833
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3834
195. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3835
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3836
196. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3837
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3838
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3839
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3840
198. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3841
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3842
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3843
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3844
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3845
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3846
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3847
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3848
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3849
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3850
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3851
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3852
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3853
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3854
205. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3855
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3856
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3857
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3858
207. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3859
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3860
208. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3861
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3862
209. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3863
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3864
210. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3865
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3866
211. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3867
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3868
212. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3869
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3870
213. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3871
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3872
214. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3873
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3874
215. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3875
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3876
216. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3877
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3878
217. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3879
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3880
218. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3881
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3882
219. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3883
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3884
220. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3885
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3886
221. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3887
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3888
222. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3889
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3890
223. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3891
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3892
224. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3893
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3894
225. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3895
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3896
226. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3897
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3898
227. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3899
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3900
228. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3901
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3902
229. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3903
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3904
230. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3905
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3906
231. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3907
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3908
232. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3909
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3910
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3911
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3912
234. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3913
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3914
235. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3915
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3916
236. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3917
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3918
237. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3919
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3920
238. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3921
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3922
239. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3923
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3924
240. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3925
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3926
241. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3927
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3928
242. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3929
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3930
243. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3931
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3932
244. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3933
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3934
245. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3935
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3936
246. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3937
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3938
247. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3939
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3940
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3941
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3942
249. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3943
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3944
250. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3945
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3946
251. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3947
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3948
252. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3949
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3950
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3951
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3952
254. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3953
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3954
255. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3955
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3956
256. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3957
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3958
257. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3959
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3960
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Decompensation by Hyper Decompress of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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 Decompensation by Hyper Decompress of Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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 Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Hamiltonian-

Preprint · April 2023

415 PUBLICATIONS 9,328 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2

Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4

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-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10

(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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-Decomposition if the following expression 13

is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21

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

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 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-Decomposition 30

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 33

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 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-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 43

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 45

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 46

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 47

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 48

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 49

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 53

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 54

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 55

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 56

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 57

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 58

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 59

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 60

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 61

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 62

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 65

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 66

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 67

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 68

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 69

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 70

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71