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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369825614
New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Hamiltonian-

Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
423 PUBLICATIONS 10,055 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 06 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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s 3
Recognition 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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10
(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 13
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria 14
holds 15
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is 16
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 17
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 19
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 20
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is 21
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 22
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 23
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 24
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 25
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 26
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 27
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) 28
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 29
(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 30
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 31
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 36
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 37
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 38
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 39
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 40
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 41
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 46
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 47
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 48
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 49
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 50
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme 51
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 52
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 53
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 57
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 58
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 59
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 60
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 62
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 63
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 64
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 69
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 70
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 72
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 73
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 74
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 75
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 76
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 81
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 82
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 83
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 85
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 91
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 92
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme 95
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 96
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 101
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 102
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 103
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 106
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 107
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 113
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 114
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 115
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 116
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 118
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 119
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 120
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and Neutrosophic 121
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 122
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 123
SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 124
well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For 125
shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 126
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 127
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 128
instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 129
figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 130
“Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense 131
about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in 132
the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are individuals and 133
some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all officially called 134
“SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. 135
The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen 136
and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense 137
SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and 138
“Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also 139
officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a 140
SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 141
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with 142
a maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 143
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 144
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 145
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 146
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 147
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal Neutrosophic of 148
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 149
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 150
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 151
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 152
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 153
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 154
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 155
type-results to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. 156
For the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 157
need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The 158
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 159
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 160
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s redefined 161
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, 162
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 163
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 164
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 165
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 166
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 167
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 168
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 169
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 170
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 171
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 172
have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition until the 173
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then it’s officially called a 174
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 175
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . There are some instances about the 176
clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ”. 177
These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in 178
the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 179
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 180
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 181
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 182
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 183
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 184
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 185
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 186
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition are redefined to a 187
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s 188
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 189
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 190
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 191
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 192
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 193
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 194
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 195
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, 196
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and 197
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has 198
a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” where it’s the strongest [the 199
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 200
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 201
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition .] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . A 202
graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements 203
of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 204
are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one 205
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 206
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 207
amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 208
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one 209
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 210
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 211
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 212
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 213
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 214
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 215
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 216
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 217
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, 218
The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 219
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 220
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 221
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 222
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 223
SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 224
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 225
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 226
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 227
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 228
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 229
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 230
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 231
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 232
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 233
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 234
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 235
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 236
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 237
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition or the 238
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic 239
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, called 240
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and the strongest 241
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 242
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond 243
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 244
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 245
any style of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 246
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 247
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 248
basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition theory, 249
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 250
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, 251
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 252
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 253
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 254
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 255
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 256
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 257
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 258
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 259
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 260
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 261
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 262
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 263
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 264
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 265
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 266
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 267
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 268
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 269
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 270
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 271
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 272
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 273
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 274
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 275
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 276
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 277
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 278
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 279
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 280
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 281
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 282
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 283
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 284
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 285
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 286
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 287
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 288
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 289
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 290
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 291
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 292
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 293
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 294
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 295
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 296
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 297
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 298
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 299
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition or the Extreme 300
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some 301
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 302
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 303
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 304
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 305
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 306
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 307
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 308
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or 309
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 310
“amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 311
fixed groups of group of cells? 312
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 313
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 314
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 315
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 316
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Extreme 317
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme 318
SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 319
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 320
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 321
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 322
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 323
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 324
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 325
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 326
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 327
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 328
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 329
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 330
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 331
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and Extreme 332
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, are figured out in sections “ 333
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Extreme 334
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and 335
in Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 336
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 337
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 338
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 339
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 340
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 341
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 342
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 343
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 344
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 345
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 346
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 347
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Extreme 348
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 349
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 350
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 351
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 352
presented in section, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”. The keyword of this 353
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 354
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 355
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 356
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 357
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 358
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 359
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 360
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 361
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 362
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 363
Research On the Redeemed Ways 364
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 365
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [163],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 366
Set](Ref. [163],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 367
(NSHG)](Ref. [163],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [163], 369
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 370
(NSHG)](Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 371
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [163],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 372
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [163],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 373
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [163]. 374
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 375
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 376
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [163],Definition 2.1,p.1). 377
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Type-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 378
+
]− 0, 1 [. 379
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [163],Definition 2.2,p.2). 380
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Type-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. [163],Definition 381
2.5,p.2). 382
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 383
pair S = (V, E), where 384
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 385
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 386
1, 2, . . . , n); 387
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 388
V; 389
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 390
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 391
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 392
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 393
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 394
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 395
(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 . 396
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 397
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 398
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 399
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 400
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 401
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 402
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 403
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 404
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 405
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 406
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 407
(Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3). 408
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 409
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 410
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 411
characterized as follow-up items. 412
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 413
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 414
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 415
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 416
HyperEdge; 417
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 418
SuperEdge; 419
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 420
SuperHyperEdge. 421
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 422
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 423
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [163], Definition 2.7, p.3). 424
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 425
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 426
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 427
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 428
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 429
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 430
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)). 431
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 432
pair S = (V, E), where 433
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 434
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 435
1, 2, . . . , n); 436
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 437
V; 438
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 439
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 440
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 441
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 442
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 443
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 444
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 445
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 446
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 447
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 448
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 449
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 450
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 451
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 452
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 453
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 454
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 455
(Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3). 456
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 457
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 458
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 459
characterized as follow-up items. 460
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 461
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 462
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 463
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 464
HyperEdge; 465
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 466
SuperEdge; 467
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 468
SuperHyperEdge. 469
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 470
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 471
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 472
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 473
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 474
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 475
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 476
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 477
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 478
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 479
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 480
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 481
given SuperHyperEdges; 482
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 483
SuperHyperEdges; 484
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 485
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 486
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 487
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 488
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 489
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 490
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 491
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 492
common SuperVertex. 493
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 494
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 495
of following conditions hold: 496
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 497
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 498
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 499
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 500
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 501
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 502
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 503
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 504
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 505
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 506
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 507
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. 508
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 509
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 510
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 511
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 512
SuperHyperPath . 513
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 514
(Ref. [163],Definition 5.3,p.7). 515
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 516
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 517
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 518
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 519
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 520
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 521
(NSHE)). (Ref. [163],Definition 5.4,p.7). 522
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 523
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 524
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 525
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 526
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 527
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 528
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 529
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 531
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 532
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 534
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 535
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 536
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 537
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 538
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). 539
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 541
either V 0 or E 0 is called 542
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 543
expression is called Neutrosophic 544
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 545
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 546
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 548
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 549
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 550
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 552
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 553
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 555
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 556
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 557
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 561
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). 562
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 564
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 565
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 570
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 571
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 572
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 573
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 574
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 575
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 580
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 581
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 584
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 585
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 591
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 592
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 593
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 594
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 596
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 597
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 598
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 604
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 605
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 606
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 607
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 608
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 609
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 610
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 611
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 616
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 617
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 618
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 620
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 621
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 626
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 627
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 631
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 637
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 638
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 639
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 640
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 642
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 643
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 644
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 650
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 651
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 653
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 654
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 655
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 656
Definition 3.20. 657
((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). 658
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 659
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
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of 660
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the 661
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 662
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 663
|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 664
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 665
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a 666
Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition such 667
that either of the following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 668
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 669
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 670
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 671
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 672
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 673
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 674
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 675
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 676
assign to the values. 677
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 678
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 679
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 680
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 681
understandable. 682
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 683
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 684
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 685
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 686
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 687
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 688
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 689
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 690

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 691
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 692
make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly 693
understandable. 694
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 695
there’s a need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 696
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 697
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 698
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 699
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 700
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 701
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As

Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 702
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 703
Forms 704
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 705
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 706
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Any Extreme k-subset of A of 707
V is called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 708
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 709
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 710
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 712
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 713
s-independent criteria 714
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. 715
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 716
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 717
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Any k-function 719
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 720
2-function Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Extreme Variable. 721
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 722
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 723
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 725
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 726
Expectation criteria 727
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 728
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme number is called 730
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 731
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). 732
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let m and n propose 733
special Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 734
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 735
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 736
independently with probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set 737
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 738
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: 739
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
740
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 741
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 742
of n points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the 743
plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then 744
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 745
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 746
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 747
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 748
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 749
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 750
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 751
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 752
Theorem 4.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 753
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 754
of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 755
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 756
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 757
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 758
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 759

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 760
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
761
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 762
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 763
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 764
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 765
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 766
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 767
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 768
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 769
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 770
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 771
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 772
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 773
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 774
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. 775
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 776
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 777
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 778
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 779
Proof. 780
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 781
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 782
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 783
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph in 785
Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 786
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 787
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 788
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme 789
SuperHyperGraph G. 790
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 791
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 792
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 793
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 794
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: 795
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 796
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 797
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 798
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 799
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 800
number at most k. 801
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 802
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 804
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 805
Variance criteria 806
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be an 808
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 809
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be an Extreme Variable 811
and let t be a positive real number. Then 812
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
813
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be an 815
Extreme Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 816
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 817
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and 819
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 820
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 821
when Xn = 0. 822
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let 824
G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least 825
value of k for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the 826
three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 827
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. As in the proof of related 829
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 830
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let 832
G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 833
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 834
or 835
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 836
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 838
straightforward. 839
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 840
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property 842
of SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). 843
Then a Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 844
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 845
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 846
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 847
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Extreme 849
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 850
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 851
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a 853
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 854
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 855
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 856
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 858
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 860
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 861
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 862
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is 863
Extremely straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges 864
but E2 is a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme 865
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 866
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 867
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 868
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 869
every given Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 870
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
871
Extremely straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme 874
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 875
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, 876
namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that 877
there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the 878
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 879
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.3)
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 880

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
= z3.
881
Extremely straightforward. 884

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 }}.
= z3.
885




= {{E4 }, {E5 }}.
= 2z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , {N }, {F }}}.
= z5.
889

= {{E1 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }}.
= z5.
893


= {{Ei=110 , Ej=2232 , E12 }}.
= 11z 22 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z 22 .
897

= {{E15 , E13 , E16 , E14 , E17 , E12 }, . . .}.
= 3z 6 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z 14 .
901




= {{E2 }, {E3 }}.
= 2z.
= {{Vi=811 , V!4 }}.
= z 14 .
905

= {{Ei=110 , E22 , E12 }}.
= 11z 12 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z 22 .
909


= {{E1 , E6 , E2 , E7 , E3 , E4 }, . . .}.
= 3z 6 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z 14 .
913

= {{E1 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, . . .}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z6.



917

= {{E1 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }}.
= z5.
921

= {{E9 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, . . .}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z6.

925

= {{E1 }, {E2 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 }, {V1 , V3 }}.
= 2z 2 .
929

= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 5z.
= {{V3 , V4 }, . . .}.
= 5z 2 .


933

= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 5z.
= {{Vi=817 }, . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . + z 2 .
937

= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 6z.
= {{Vi=817 }, . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . + z 2 .
941




= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 6z.
= {{Vi=817 }, . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . + z 2 .
945

= {{Ei=112 }}.
X
= aj z |Ei=112 | .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
X
= ai z bj .

949

= {E6 , . . .}.
= z |E6 | + . . . .
= {Vi ∈ VE6 , . . .}.
X
= ai z bj .
953

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

957

= {{E2 }, . . .}.
= 4z.
= {Vi ∈ VE2 , . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . .
961
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 962
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 963
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 964
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 965
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 966
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 967
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 968
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 969
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 970
any given Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Extreme 971
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 972


unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme 973
SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, minus all Extreme 974
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 975
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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 976
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 977
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the 978
Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 979
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 980
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but 981
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 982
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 983
contained in an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 984
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with the least Extreme 985
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 986
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 987
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 988
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 ,

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, 989
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme 990
type-result-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality of 991
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 ,

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-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 992
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 993
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 994
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 995
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 996
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 997
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 998
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 999
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition has
the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an Extreme
R-Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-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-Type-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-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as 1000
used Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 1001
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1002
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 1003
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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially
included in an Extreme style-R-Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme

R-Hamiltonian-Type-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

E
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 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, 1004
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1005
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1006
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 1007
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 1008
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 1009
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 1010
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases 1011
but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 1012
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1013
are contained in an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1014
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1015
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 1016
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1017
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1018
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 1019
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1020
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1021
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1022
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1023
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1024
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme 1025
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition where the Extreme completion of the Extreme 1026
incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an Extreme embedded 1027
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet 1028
and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 1029
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 1030
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 1031
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 1032
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 1033
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The interior 1034
types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 1035
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1036
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 1037
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 1038
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus Extreme 1039
exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 1040
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 1041
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 1042
there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more 1043
connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than 1044
the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, 1045
the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1046
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1047
implying the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The Extreme 1048
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme 1049
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the 1050
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with the inclusion of all Extreme 1051
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme 1052
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1053
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme 1054
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct 1055
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme 1056
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 1057
them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 1058
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1059
in an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, minus all Extreme 1060
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1061
The main definition of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition has two titles. an 1062
Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1063
Extreme R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any 1064
Extreme number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with that 1065
quasi-maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1066
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1067
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1068
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decompositions for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1069
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme 1070
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1071
Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, again and more in the operations of 1072
collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decompositions acted on the all possible 1073
used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. 1074
This Extreme number is 1075
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1076
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decompositions. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1077
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1078
SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1079
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is 1080
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1081
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Type-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 1082
technical definition for the Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1083
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Type-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 1084
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1085
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1086
= max zExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1087

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1088


1089
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1090

1091

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1092
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1093
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1094
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1095
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1096
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” since “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” 1097
happens “Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as 1098
initial framework and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not 1099
happens “Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as 1100
initial framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about 1101
the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1102
“Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, 1103
and “Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” are up. 1104
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1105
GExtreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1106
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the new 1107
terms are up. 1108

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1109
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1110
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1111
And with go back to initial structure, 1112


1113
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1114

1115

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1116
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1117
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1122
are coming up. 1123
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1124
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1125
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-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme
Hamiltonian-Type-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-Type-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-Type-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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1126
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1127
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some 1128
Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1129
called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an Extreme 1130
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1131
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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t only less than two Extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1132
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1133
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1134
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1135
“Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” 1136
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1137
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 1138
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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition amid
those obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1139
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

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

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is
the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1140
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1141
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1146
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1147
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1148
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1149
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1150
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with 1151
the least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1152
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1153
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1154
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1155
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme 1156
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1157
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1158
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1160
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1161
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1162
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that 1163
such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme 1164
SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside 1165
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1166
ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme 1167
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme 1168
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one 1169
Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1170
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1171
Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1172
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE , is an 1173
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does 1174
forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a 1175
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme 1176
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1177
maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1178
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a connected Extreme 1180
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition only 1181
contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1182
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1183
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1184
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1185
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1186
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1187
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither 1188
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme 1189
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1190
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The 1191
Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1192
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = az s
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme .

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1194

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1195
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1196
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1198
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1199
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1200
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1201
non-obvious Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1202
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is an Extreme 1203
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1204
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1205

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1206
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1207
Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme 1208
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1209

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1210
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1211
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1212

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1213
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1214
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some 1215
Extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1216
Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an Extreme 1217
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1218
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1220
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1221
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1222
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1223

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

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1225
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, not: 1226

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1227

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1228
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1229
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1230
“Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ” 1231
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1232
Extreme Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition , 1233
is only and only 1234

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1235
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1236
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1237
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1238
SuperHyperClasses. 1239
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1240

= {{Eimax }, . . . , {Eimin }}.
max min
= z |Ei |
+ . . . + z |Ei |
.
= {{Vi ∈ Eimax }, . . . , {Vi ∈ Eimin }}.
max min
= z |{Vi ∈Ei }|
+ . . . + z |{Vi ∈Ei }|
.
Proof. Let 1241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1242
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). 1243
There’s a new way to redefine as 1244
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 1245
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of 1246
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 1247
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1248
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1249
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1250
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1251
Then 1252

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |EN SHG | .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG | .
1253
Proof. Let 1254
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
1255
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). 1256

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1261
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1262
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme 1263
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.7)
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1265

= {{Eimax }, . . . , {Eimin }}.
max min
= z |Ei |
+ . . . + z |Ei |
.
= {{Vi ∈ Eimax }, . . . , {Vi ∈ Eimin }}.
max min
= z |{Vi ∈Ei }|
+ . . . + z |{Vi ∈Ei }|
.
Proof. Let 1266
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1267
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1268
a new way to redefine as 1269

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1273
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1274
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1275
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1276
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1277
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1278
Then 1279

= {{Pimax }, . . . , {Pimin }}.
max min
= z |Pi |
+ . . . + z |Pi |
.
= {{Vi ∈ Pimax }, . . . , {Vi ∈ Pimin }}.
max min
= z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
+ . . . + z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
.
Proof. Let 1280
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
1281
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). 1282

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no 1286
at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be 1287
up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition could 1288
be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could 1289
have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1290
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition taken from a connected Extreme 1291
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1292
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1293
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1294
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1295
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1296
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1297
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1298
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1299
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1300
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1301
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1302

= {{Pimax }, . . . , {Pimin }}.
max min
= z |Pi |
+ . . . + z |Pi |
.
= {{Vi ∈ Pimax }, . . . , {Vi ∈ Pimin }}.
max min
= z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
+ . . . + z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
.
Proof. Let 1303
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
1304
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1306

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no 1309
at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be 1310
up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition could 1311
be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 1312
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1313
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1314
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1315
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1318
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1319
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1320
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1321
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1322
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1323
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1325
Then, 1326

= {{Ei=1|EN SHG |−1 , Ea∗ , Eb∗ }}.
= |EN SHG |z |EN SHG |+1 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1327
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
1328
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1330

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at 1333
least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and 1334
the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition could be 1335
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition proposes some 1336
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The 1337
latter is straightforward. 1338
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1339
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1340
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1341
of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme 1342
SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1343
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1344
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1345
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Extreme 1346
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and the Extreme 1347
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1348
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is 1349
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1350
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1351
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian − T ype − Cycle − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − T ype − Cycle − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertic
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − T ype − Cycle − Decomposition
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1352
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1353
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1354
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1355
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and 1356
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition coincide. 1357
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an 1359
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a 1360
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1363
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1364
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1366
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme 1367
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and 1368
reversely. 1369
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme 1370
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1371
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1372
letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is its 1373
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1374
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1375
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1376
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1377
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1378
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1379
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1383
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1384
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1386
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1387
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1388
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1389
its Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1390
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1394
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1395
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1397
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1398
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1399
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1400
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1401
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1402
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1403
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1404
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1405
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1406
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1407
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1408
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1409
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1410
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1411
independent SuperHyperSet is 1412
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1413
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1414
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1415
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1416
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1417
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1418
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1419
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1420
V is a maximal 1421
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1422
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1423
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1424
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1425
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1426
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1427
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1428
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1429
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1430
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1431
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1432
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1433
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1434
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1435
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1436
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1438
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1440
the number of 1441
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1442
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1443
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1444
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1445
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1446
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1447
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1448
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1449
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1451
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1452
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1453
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1454
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1455
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1456
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1457
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1458
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1461
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1462
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1463
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1464
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1468
(v) : strong O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1469
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1475
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1476
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1477
is a 1478
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1482
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1483
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1484
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1487
number of 1488
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1492
(v) : strong O(ESHG)

(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1497
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1498
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1499
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1501
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1502
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1506
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1507
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1508
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1509
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1510
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1511
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1512
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1513
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1517
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1518
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1522
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1523
setting of dual 1524
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1528
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1529
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1530
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1532
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1534
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1535
dual 1536
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1540
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1541
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1543
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1546
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1547
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1548
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1552
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1557
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1558
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1559
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1560
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1561
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1562
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1563
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1564
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1565
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1566
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1567
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition set; 1568
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1569
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1570
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1571
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1572
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1573
connected. Then 1574
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1575
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1576
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1577
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1578
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1580
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1581
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1582
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1583
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1584
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1585
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1587
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1588
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1589
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1590
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1591
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1592
Then 1593
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1596
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1597
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1598
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1599
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1601
Then 1602
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1603
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1605
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1606
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1607
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1609
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1610
(ii) Γ = 1; 1611
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1612
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1613
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1615
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1616
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1617
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1618
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1619
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1620
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1621
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1622
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1623
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1625
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1626
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1627
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1629
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1630
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1632
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1633
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1634
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1636
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1637
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1638
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1639
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1640
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1641
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1642
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1643
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1644
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1645
SuperHyperSet. Then 1646
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1647
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1648
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1649

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1650
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1651
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1653
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1654
SuperHyperSet. Then 1655
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1656
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1657
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1658

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1659
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1660
following statements hold; 1663
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1664
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1665
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1666
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1667
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1668
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1669
following statements hold; 1671
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1672
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1673
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1674
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1675
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1676
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1677
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1678
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1679
hold; 1680
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1681
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1682
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1683
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1685
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1687
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1688
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1689
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1690
hold; 1691
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1692
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1694
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1696
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1698
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1699
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1701
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1702
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1703
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1705
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1707
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1710
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1712
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1713
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1714
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1716
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1718
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1719
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1721
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1723
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1724
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1725
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1727
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1729
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1732
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1734
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1735
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1736
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1738
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1740
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1743
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1744
Recognition 1745
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1746
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease is 1747
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1748
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1749
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some Extreme 1750
treatments for this Extreme disease. 1751
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1752
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1753
long-term Extreme function. 1754
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme model 1755
[it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the move 1756
from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer 1757
hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and 1758
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event 1759
leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to 1760
have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1761
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1762
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1763
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1764
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1765
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1767
find either the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition or the Extreme 1768
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1769
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1770
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1771
SuperHyperModel 1772
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1773
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1774
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1775
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1776
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1777
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1778
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1779
the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1780
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1781
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1782
SuperHyperModel 1783
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1784
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1785
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1786
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1787
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous result, 1788
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1789
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1790
is the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1791
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1792
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1793
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1794
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme 1795
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled 1796
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1797
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1798
recognitions? 1799
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1800
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme 1801
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition? 1802
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1803
compute them? 1804
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1805
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition? 1807
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme 1808
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1809
and they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, are there else? 1810
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1811
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1812
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1813
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1814
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1815
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1816
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1817
highlighted. 1818
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1819
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1820
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1821
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1822
Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1823
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1824
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 1825
Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions 1826
where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on 1827
the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1828
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, 1829
are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1830
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 1832
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 1833
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1834
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1835
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1836
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1837
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1838
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1839
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in the 1840
themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the 1841
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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
3. Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1842
(6), benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1843
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1844
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1845
Forms 1846
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1847
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1848
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1849
V 0 or E 0 is called 1850
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1851
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1852
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1853
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1854
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1855
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1856
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1857
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1858
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1859
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1860
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1861
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1862
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1863
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1864
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1866
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1867
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1868
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1869
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1870
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1871
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1872
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1874
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1875
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1876
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1877
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1878
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1879
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1880
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1881
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1882
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1883
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1885
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1886
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1887
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1888
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1889
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1890
Extreme coefficient; 1891
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1892
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1902
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1909
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1910
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1914
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1916
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1917
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1918
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1922
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1923
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1927
Extreme coefficient. 1936
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1940
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1941
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1942
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1943
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1944
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 1945
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1946
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 1949
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1954


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). 1997
Then 1998
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 1999
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 2003
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2007
Then 2009
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 2010
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2018
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 2019
Then 2020
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 2021
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2031
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2032
ESHB : (V, E). Then 2033
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 2034
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 2039
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2040
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2041
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2042
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2043
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2044
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2052

= {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 2055
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 2056

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2062
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), 2072
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2073
Then, 2075
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 2076
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 2077
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2078

∃!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 2083
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2084
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2086
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2087
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 2088
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2089
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2090
Forms 2092
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2093
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 2097
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2098
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2099
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2100
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2102
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2103
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2104
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2105
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2107
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2108
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2109
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2112
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2113
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2114
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2115
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2116
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2117
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2118
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2119
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2121
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2125
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2126
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2127
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2128
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2134
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2136
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2146
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2150
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2151
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2152
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2153
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2157
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2159
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2160
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2170
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2183
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2184
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2189
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. 2191
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2197


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 2241
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 2242
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2246
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2250
Then 2252

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

.
Proof. Let 2253
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2261
Then 2263
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 2264

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2274
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 2277
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 2282
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2283
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2284
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2286
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2295

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 2298
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2299
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2300

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2303
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2304
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2305
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. 2316
Then, 2318

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

.
Proof. Let 2319
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2320

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2324
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2325
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2326
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2327
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2332
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2333
Forms 2335
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2336
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2340
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2341
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2342
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2343
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2345
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2346
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2347
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2348
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2350
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2351
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2352
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2353
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2356
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2358
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2362
SuperHyperPerfect; 2363
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2364
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2366
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2370
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2371
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2372
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2373
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2379
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2381
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2391
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2392
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2398
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2399
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2400
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2403
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2405
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2406
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2407
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2416
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2429
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2435
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. 2443


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 2487
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 2488
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2492
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2496
Then 2498
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 2499
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2507
Then 2509
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2510

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2520
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 2523
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 2528
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2529
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2530
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2532
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2541

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 2544
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2545

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2549
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2550
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2551
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. 2562
Then, 2564
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2565
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2566

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2570
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2571
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2572
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2573
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2578
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2579
Forms 2581
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2582
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2586
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2587
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2588
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2589
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2591
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2592
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2593
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2594
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2596
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2597
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2598
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2599
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2602
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2604
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2608
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2609
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2611
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2615
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2616
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2617
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2618
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2624
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2626
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2636
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2640
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2641
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2642
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2643
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2647
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2649
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2650
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2660
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2673
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2679
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. 2687


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 2731
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 2732
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2736
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2740
Then 2742
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 2743
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. 2751
Then 2753
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 2754
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2764
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 2767
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2772
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2773
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2776
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2785

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 2788
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2789
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2790

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2793
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2794
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. 2806
Then, 2808
∗
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 2809
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2810

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2814
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2815
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2816
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2817
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2822
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2823
Forms 2825
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2826
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2830
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2831
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2832
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2833
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2835
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2836
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2837
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2838
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2840
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2841
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2842
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2843
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2846
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2848
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2849
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2850
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2851
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2853
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2854
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2857
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2858
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2859
SuperHyperConnected; 2861
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2862
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2863
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2865
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2870
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2872
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2873
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2882
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2886
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2887
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2889
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2890
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2894
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2895
SuperHyperConnected; 2897
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2898
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2899
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2900
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2901
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2908
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2909
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2921
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2922
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2923
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2924
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2925
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2926
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2927
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2928
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 2931
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2932
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2933
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2934
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2936


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 3000
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 3001
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 3005
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3009
Then 3011
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 3012
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 3015
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3020
Then 3022
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 3023
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3033
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 3036
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3041
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3042
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3045
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 3046
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3054
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 3057
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3058

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3062
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3063
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. 3075
Then, 3077
∗
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 3078
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3079

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3083
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3084
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3085
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3086
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3092
17 Background 3093
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3094
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3095
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3096
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3097
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3098
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3099
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3100
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3101
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3102
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3103
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3104
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3105
results based on initial background. 3106
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3107
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3108
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3109
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3110
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3111
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3112
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3113
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3114
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3115
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3116
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3117
SuperHyperNumbers. 3118
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3119
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3120
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3121
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3122
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3123
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3124
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3125
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3126
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3127
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3128
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3129
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3130
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3131
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3132
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3133
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3134
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3135
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3136
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3137
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3138
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3139
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3140
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3141
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3142
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3143
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3144
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3145
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3146
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3147
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3148
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3149
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3150
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3151
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3152
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3153
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3154
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3155
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3156
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3157
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3158
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3159
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3160
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3161
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3162
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3163
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3164
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3165
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3166
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3167
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3168
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3169
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3170
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3171
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3172
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3173
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3174
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3175
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3176
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3177
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3178
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3179
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3180
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3181
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [133] by Henry 3182
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3183
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3184
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [134] by Henry Garrett 3185
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3186
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3187
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [135] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3188
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3189
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3190
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [136] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3191
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3192
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [139] by 3193
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3194
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3195
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [140] by Henry 3196
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3197
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3198
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [143] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3199
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3200
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [146] by Henry 3201
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3202
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3203
in Ref. [147] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3204
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3205
Ref. [148] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3206
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3207
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [149] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3208
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3209
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [150] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3210
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3211
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [151] by Henry Garrett 3212
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3213
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [162] by Henry 3214
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3215
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3216
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [163] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–163], there 3217
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3218
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [164–258]. 3219
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3220
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [259, 260]. 3221
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3222
proposed as book in Ref. [247] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3223
Scholar and has more than 4190 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3224
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3225
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3226
theory. 3227
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3228
proposed as book in Ref. [248] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3229
Scholar and has more than 5189 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3230
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3231
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3232
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3233
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3234
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3235
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3236
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3237
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3238
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–163] alongside scientific 3239
research books at [164–258]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3240
of high readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [259, 260]. 3241
References 3242
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3243
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3244
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3245
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3246
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3247
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3248
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3249
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3250
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3251
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3252
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3253
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3254
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3255
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3256
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3257
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3258
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3259
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3260
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3261
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3262
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3263
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3264
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3265
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3266
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3267
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3268
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3269
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3270
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3271
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3272
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3273
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3274
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3275
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3276
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3277
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3278
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3279
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3280
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3281
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3282
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3283
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3284
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3285
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3286
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3287
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3288
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3289
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3290
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3291
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3292
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3293
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3294
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3295
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3296
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3297
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3298
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3299
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3300
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3301
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3302
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3303
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3304
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3305
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3306
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3307
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3308
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3309
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3310
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3311
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3312
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3313
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3314
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3315
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3316
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3318
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3322
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3323
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3324
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3325
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3326
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3327
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3328
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3329
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3330
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3331
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3332
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3333
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3334
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3335
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3336
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3337
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3338
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3339
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3340
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3341
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3342
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3343
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3344
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3346
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7796334). 3347
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3349
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3350
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3352
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3353
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3354
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3355
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791982). 3356
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3358
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3359
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3360
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3361
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3364
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3365
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3366
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3367
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3370
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3371
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3372
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3373
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3376
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3377
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3379
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3381
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3382
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3383
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3385
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3388
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3389
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3390
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3391
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3392
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3394
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3397
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3400
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3401
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3403
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3404
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3406
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3407
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3408
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3409
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3410
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3412
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3415
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3418
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3419
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3421
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3424
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3426
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3428
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3430
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3432
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3433
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3436
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3438
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3439
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3442
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3444
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3446
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3448
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3450
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3451
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3454
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3455
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3457
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3460
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3462
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3464
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3466
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3467
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3469
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3471
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3473
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3475
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3476
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3477
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3478
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3479
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3481
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3482
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3483
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3484
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3487
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3489
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3490
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3493
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3495
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3496
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3499
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3501
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3503
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3505
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3506
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3507
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3508
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3511
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3512
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3513
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3514
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3517
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3518
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3519
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3520
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3523
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3524
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3525
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3526
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3529
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3530
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3531
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3532
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3535
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3536
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3537
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3538
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3540
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3541
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3544
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3545
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3546
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3547
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3550
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3551
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3552
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3556
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3558
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3562
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3564
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3565
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3567
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3568
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3571
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3574
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3576
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3577
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3579
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3580
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3582
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3583
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3584
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3585
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3586
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3587
107. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3588
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3589
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3591
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3592
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3593
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3594
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3595
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3596
110. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3597
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3598
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3599
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3600
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3603
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3604
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3607
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3608
113. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3609
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3611
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3612
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3615
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3616
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3619
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3620
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3621
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3622
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3623
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3624
117. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3625
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3626
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3627
118. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3628
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3629
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3630
119. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3631
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3632
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3633
120. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3634
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3635
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3636
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3637
121. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3638
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3639
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3640
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3641
122. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3642
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3643
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3644
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3645
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3646
123. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3647
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3648
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3649
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3650
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3651
124. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3653
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3654
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3655
125. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3656
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3657
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3658
126. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3659
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3660
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3662
127. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3663
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3664
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3665
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3666
128. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3667
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3668
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3669
129. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3670
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3671
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3672
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3673
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3674
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3675
130. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3676
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3677
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3678
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3679
131. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3680
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3681
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3682
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3683
132. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3684
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3685
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3686
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3687
133. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3688
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3689
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3690
134. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3691
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3692
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3693
135. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3695
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3696
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3697
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3698
136. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3699
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3700
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3701
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3702
137. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3703
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3704
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3705
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3706
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3708
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3709
139. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3710
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3711
140. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3713
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3714
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3715
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3720
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3724
143. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3725
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3726
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3727
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3728
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3731
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3733
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3734
146. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3735
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3736
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3740
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3741
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3743
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3744
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3747
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3748
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3750
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3751
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3754
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3755
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3757
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3758
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3760
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3765
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3766
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3770
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3771
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3774
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3777
158. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3778
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3779
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3780
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3781
159. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3782
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3783
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3784
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3785
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3788
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3789
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3792
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3793
162. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3794
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 3795
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3796
163. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3797
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3798
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3799
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3800
164. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3801
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793875). 3802
165. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3803
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7792307). 3804
166. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3805
167. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3807
168. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3809
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3810
169. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3811
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3812
170. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3813
171. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3815
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3816
172. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3817
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3818
173. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3819
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3820
174. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3821
175. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3823
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3824
176. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3825
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3826
177. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3827
178. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3829
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3830
179. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3831
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3832
180. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3833
181. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3835
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3836
182. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3837
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3838
183. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3839
184. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3841
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3842
185. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3843
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3844
186. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3845
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3846
187. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3847
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3848
188. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3849
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3850
189. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3851
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3852
190. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3853
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3854
191. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3855
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3856
192. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3857
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3858
193. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3859
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3860
194. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3861
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3862
195. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3863
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3864
196. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3865
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3866
197. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3867
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3868
198. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3869
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3870
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3871
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3872
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3873
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3874
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3875
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3876
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3877
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3878
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3879
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3880
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3881
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3882
205. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3883
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3884
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3885
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3886
207. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3887
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3888
208. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3889
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3890
209. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3891
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3892
210. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3893
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3894
211. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3895
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3896
212. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3897
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3898
213. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3899
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3900
214. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3901
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3902
215. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3903
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3904
216. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3905
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3906
217. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3907
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3908
218. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3909
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3910
219. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3911
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3912
220. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3913
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3914
221. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3915
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3916
222. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3917
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3918
223. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3919
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3920
224. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3921
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3922
225. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3923
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3924
226. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3925
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3926
227. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3927
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3928
228. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3929
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3930
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3931
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3932
230. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3933
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3934
231. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3935
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3936
232. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3937
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3938
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3939
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3940
234. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3941
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3942
235. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3943
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3944
236. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3945
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3946
237. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3947
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3948
238. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3949
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3950
239. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3951
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3952
240. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3953
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3954
241. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3955
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3956
242. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3957
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3958
243. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3959
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3960
244. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3961
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3962
245. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3963
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3964
246. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3965
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3966
247. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3967
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3968
248. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3969
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3970
249. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3971
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3972
250. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3973
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3974
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3975
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3976
252. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3977
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3978
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3979
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3980
254. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3981
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3982
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3983
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3984
256. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3985
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3986
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3987
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3988
258. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3989
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3990
259. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3991
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3992
260. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3993
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3994
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Hamiltonian-

Preprint · April 2023

423 PUBLICATIONS 10,055 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2

Recognition 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-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10

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

expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria 14

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is 16

called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 17

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 19

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 20

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is 21

called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 22

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 23

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 24

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 27

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 29

(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 30

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 31

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 32

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 35

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 36

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 37

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 38

conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 39

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 40

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 42

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 45

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 46

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 47

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 48

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 49

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 50

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 52

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 53

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 55

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 56

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 57

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 58

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 59

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 60

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 61

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 62

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 63

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 64

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 67

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 68

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 69

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 70

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 71

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 72

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 73