New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369825816
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super
Decompensation
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7804238
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
424 PUBLICATIONS 10,144 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs 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 In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By 3
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 4
Decompress On Super Decompensation 5
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 7
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 8
1 ABSTRACT 9
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 10
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 11
(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 12
SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 13
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 14
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria 15
holds 16
∀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 17
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 18
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 19
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is 22
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 23
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 24
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 25
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 26
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 27
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 28
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) 29
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 30
(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 31
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 32
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 37
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 38
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 39
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 40
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 41
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 42
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 47
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 48
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 49
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 50
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 51
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme 52
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 53
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 58
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 59
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 60
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 61
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 63
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 64
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 65
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 70
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 71
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 72
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 73
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 74
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 75
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 76
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 77
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 82
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 83
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 84
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 86
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 87
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 92
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 93
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme 96
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 97
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 102
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 103
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 104
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 107
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 108
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 114
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 115
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 116
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 119
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 120
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 121
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and Neutrosophic 122
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 123
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 124
SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 125
well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For 126
shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 127
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 128
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 129
instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 130
figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 131
“Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense 132
about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in 133
the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are individuals and 134
some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all officially called 135
“SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. 136
The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen 137
and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense 138
SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and 139
“Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also 140
officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a 141
SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 142
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with 143
a maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 144
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 145
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 146
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 147
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 148
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal Neutrosophic of 149
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 150
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 151
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 152
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 153
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 154
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 155
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 156
type-results to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. 157
For the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 158
need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The 159
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 160
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 161
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s redefined 162
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, 163
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 164
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 165
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 166
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 167
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 168
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 169
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 170
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 171
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 172
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 173
have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition until the 174
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then it’s officially called a 175
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 176
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . There are some instances about the 177
clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ”. 178
These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in 179
the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 180
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 181
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 182
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 183
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 184
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 185
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 187
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition are redefined to a 188
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s 189
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 190
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 191
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 192
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 193
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 194
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 195
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 196
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, 197
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and 198
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has 199
a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” where it’s the strongest [the 200
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 201
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 202
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition .] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition . A 203
graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements 204
of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 205
are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one 206
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 207
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 208
amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 209
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one 210
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 211
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 212
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 213
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 214
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 215
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 216
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 217
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 218
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, 219
The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 220
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 221
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 222
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 223
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 224
SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 225
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 226
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 227
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 228
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 229
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 230
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 231
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 232
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 233
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 234
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 235
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 236
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 237
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 238
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition or the 239
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic 240
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, called 241
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and the strongest 242
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 243
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond 244
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 245
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 246
any style of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 247
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 248
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 249
basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition theory, 250
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 251
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, 252
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 253
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 254
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 255
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 256
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 257
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 258
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 259
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 260
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 261
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 262
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 263
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 264
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 265
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 266
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 267
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 268
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 269
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 270
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 271
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 272
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 273
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 274
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 275
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 276
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 277
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 278
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 279
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 280
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 281
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 282
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 283
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 284
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 285
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 286
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 287
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 288
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 289
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 290
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 291
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 292
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 293
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 294
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 295
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 296
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 297
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 298
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 299
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 300
The aim is to find either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition or the 301
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic 302
SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 303
SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 304
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 305
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. There 306
isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the 307
deformation of any SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it 308
doesn’t form. 309
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 310
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or 311
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 312
“amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 313
fixed groups of group of cells? 314
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 315
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 316
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 317
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 318
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic 319
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic 320
SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 321
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 322
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 323
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 324
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 325
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 326
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 327
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 328
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 329
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 330
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 331
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 332
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 333
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and Neutrosophic 334
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, are figured out in sections “ 335
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic 336
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and 337
in Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 338
SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 339
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 340
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 341
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 342
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 343
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 344
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 345
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 346
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 347
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 348
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 349
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic 350
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 351
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 352
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 353
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 354
presented in section, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”. The keyword of this 355
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 356
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 357
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 358
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 359
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 360
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 361
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 362
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 363
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 364
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 365
Research On the Redeemed Ways 366
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 367
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [163],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 368
Set](Ref. [163],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 369
(NSHG)](Ref. [163],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 370
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [163], 371
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 372
(NSHG)](Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 373
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [163],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 374
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [163],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 375
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [163]. 376
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 377
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 378
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [163],Definition 2.1,p.1). 379
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 380
+
]− 0, 1 [. 381
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [163],Definition 2.2,p.2). 382
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 383
2.5,p.2). 384
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 385
pair S = (V, E), where 386
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 387
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 388
1, 2, . . . , n); 389
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 390
V; 391
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 392
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 393
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 394
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 395
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 396
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 397
(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 . 398
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 399
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 400
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 401
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 402
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 403
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 404
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 405
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 406
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 407
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 408
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 409
(Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3). 410
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 411
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 412
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 413
characterized as follow-up items. 414
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 415
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 416
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 417
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 418
HyperEdge; 419
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 420
SuperEdge; 421
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 422
SuperHyperEdge. 423
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 424
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 425
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [163], Definition 2.7, p.3). 426
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 427
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 428
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 429
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 430
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 431
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 432
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)). 433
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 434
pair S = (V, E), where 435
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 436
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 437
1, 2, . . . , n); 438
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 439
V; 440
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 441
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 442
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 443
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 444
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 445
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 446
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 447
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 448
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 449
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 450
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 451
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 452
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 453
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 454
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 455
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 456
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 457
(Ref. [163],Definition 2.7,p.3). 458
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 459
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 460
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 461
characterized as follow-up items. 462
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 463
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 464
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 465
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 466
HyperEdge; 467
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 468
SuperEdge; 469
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 470
SuperHyperEdge. 471
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 472
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 473
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 474
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 475
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 476
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 477
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 478
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 479
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 480
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 481
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 482
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 483
given SuperHyperEdges; 484
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 485
SuperHyperEdges; 486
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 487
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 488
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 489
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 490
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 491
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 492
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 493
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 494
common SuperVertex. 495
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 496
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 497
of following conditions hold: 498
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 499
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 500
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 501
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 502
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 503
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 504
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 505
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 506
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 507
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 508
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 509
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. 510
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 511
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 512
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 513
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 514
SuperHyperPath . 515
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 516
(Ref. [163],Definition 5.3,p.7). 517
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 518
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 519
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 520
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 521
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 522
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 523
(NSHE)). (Ref. [163],Definition 5.4,p.7). 524
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 525
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 526
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 527
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 528
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 529
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 530
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 531
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 533
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 534
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 536
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 537
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 538
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 539
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 540
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). 541
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 543
either V 0 or E 0 is called 544
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 545
expression is called Neutrosophic 546
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 547
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 548
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 550
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 551
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 552
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 554
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 555
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 557
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 558
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 559
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 563
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). 564
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 567
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 572
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 573
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 574
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 575
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 576
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 577
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 582
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 583
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 586
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 587
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 593
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 594
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 595
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 596
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 598
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 599
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 600
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 606
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 607
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 608
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 609
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 610
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 611
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 612
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 613
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 620
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 622
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 623
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 628
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 629
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 633
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 641
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 644
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 645
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 646
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 654
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 657
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 658
Definition 3.20. 659
((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). 660
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 661
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 662
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the 663
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 664
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 665
|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 666
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 667
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a 668
Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition such 669
that either of the following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 670
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 671
|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. 672
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 673
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 674
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 675
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 676
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 677
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 678
assign to the values. 679
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 680
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 681
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 682
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 683
understandable. 684
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 685
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 686
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 687
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 688
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 689
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 690
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 691
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 692

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 693
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 694
make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly 695
understandable. 696
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 697
there’s a need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 698
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 699
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 700
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 701
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 702
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 703
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 704
But As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 705
Super Forms 706
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 707
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of 709
A of V is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of 710
V is called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 711
probability of A. 712
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 713
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. s Neutrosophic k-events 715
Ai , i ∈ I is called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 716
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 717
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 718
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 719
criteria 720
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 721
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Any k-function 723
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then 724
any 2-function Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 725
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 726
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 727
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E 729
has a number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is 730
called Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 731
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 732
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic number is 734
called Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 735
Crossing criteria 736
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.

Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 737
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let m and n 738
propose special Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 739
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 740
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 741
Neutrosophic independently with probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition p := 4n/m, 742
and set H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 743
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the
Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
2
Now E(X) = pn, E(Y ) = p 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: 744
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
745
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 746
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a 747
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 748
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 749
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 750
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 751
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 752
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 753
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 754
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 755
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 756
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 757
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a 759
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 760
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 761
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 762
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Draw a 763
SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the 764
Neutrosophic number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. 765
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
Then 766
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 767
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 768
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 769
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 770
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 771
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 772
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 773
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 774
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 775
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 776
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 777
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 778
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 779
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. 780
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 781
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 782
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 783
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 784
Proof. 785
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 787
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 788
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 790
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of 791
k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 792
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 793
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 794
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 795
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 796
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 797
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 798
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 799
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: 800
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 801
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 802
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 803
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 804
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 805
stability number at most k. 806
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 807
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E 809
has a number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 810
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 811
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 a 813
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 814
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 816
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 817
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
818
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 820
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 821
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 822
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and 824
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 825
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 826
when Xn = 0. 827
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let 829
G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least 830
value of k for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the 831
three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 832
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. As in the proof of 834
related Theorem, the result is straightforward. 835
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let 837
G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 838
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 839
or 840
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 841
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 843
straightforward. 844
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 845
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property 847
of SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). 848
Then a Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 849
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 850
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 851
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 852
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 854
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 855
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 856
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a 858
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 859
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 860
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 861
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 863
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 865
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 866
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 867
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 868
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 869
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 870
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 871
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 872
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 873
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 874
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 875
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 876
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
877
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 880
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 881
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 882
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 883
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 884
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 885
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 886

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
= z3.
887
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 890

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 }}.
= z3.
891

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E4 }, {E5 }}.
= 2z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , {N }, {F }}}.
= z5.
895

= {{E1 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }}.
= z5.
899

(16.3)

= {{Ei=110 , Ej=2232 , E12 }}.
= 11z 22 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z 22 .
903

= {{E15 , E13 , E16 , E14 , E17 , E12 }, . . .}.
= 3z 6 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z 14 .
907

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E2 }, {E3 }}.
= 2z.
= {{Vi=811 , V!4 }}.
= z 14 .
911

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

(16.3)
915

= {{E1 , E6 , E2 , E7 , E3 , E4 }, . . .}.
= 3z 6 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z 14 .
919
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.3)

= {{E1 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, . . .}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z6.
923

= {{E1 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }}.
= z5.
927

Example (16.3)

Example (16.3)

Example (16.3)

= {{E9 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, . . .}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z6.
931

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

Example (16.3)
935

= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 5z.
= {{V3 , V4 }, . . .}.
= 5z 2 .
939

Example (16.3)

= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 5z.
= {{Vi=817 }, . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . + z 2 .
943

= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 6z.
= {{Vi=817 }, . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . + z 2 .
947

Example (16.3)

Example (16.3)

Example (16.3)

= {{E4 }, . . .}.
= 6z.
= {{Vi=817 }, . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . + z 2 .
951

= {{Ei=112 }}.
X
= aj z |Ei=112 | .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
X
= ai z bj .
955

Example (16.3)

= {E6 , . . .}.
= z |E6 | + . . . .
= {Vi ∈ VE6 , . . .}.
X
= ai z bj .
959

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

Example (16.3)
963

= {{E2 }, . . .}.
= 4z.
= {Vi ∈ VE2 , . . .}.
= z 10 + . . . .
967
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 968
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 969
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other 970
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 971
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 972
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 973
amount of them. 974
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 975
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 976
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 977

Example (16.3)

Example (16.3)
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition minus all 978
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 979
there’s only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 980
distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic 981
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 982
them but not all of them. 983
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 984
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of 985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the 986
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum 987
number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic 988
number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 989
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 990
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 991
SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a 992
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 993
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic 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 a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with the least 994
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 995
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 996
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 997
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 ,

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial =
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least 998
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 999
type-result-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality of 1000
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 ,

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to
form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider
the Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

eligibilities to propose property such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but the maximum
Neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
couldn’t give us the Neutrosophic lower bound in the term of Neutrosophic sharpness.
In other words, the Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless Neutrosophic 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 1001
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 1002
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 1003
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 1004
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 1005
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 1006
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 1007
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1008
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition

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

Is the maximum in comparison to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet

But the lower Neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum Neutrosophic cardinality
of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality ends up the Neutrosophic discussion. The
first Neutrosophic term refers to the Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
Neutrosophic style amid some amount of its Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that

Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices

Is a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for the Neutrosophic 1009
SuperHyperGraph as used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst 1010
Neutrosophic case and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in 1011
the specific Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 1012
which are Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 1013
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be
contained in a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic
style-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 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
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic

E
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to the Neutrosophic 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, 1014
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1015
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 1016
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of 1017
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the 1018
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the 1019
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1020
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 1021
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the 1022
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic number of 1023
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1024
contained in a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1025
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 1026
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 1027
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 1028
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1029
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 1030
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 1031
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1032
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 1033
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1034
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1035
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 1036
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 1037
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 1038
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The 1039
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1040
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1041
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1042
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1043
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1044
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1045
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1046
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1047
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1048
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1049
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 1050
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic 1051
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could 1052
be used only in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic 1053
SuperHyperRelation with the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that 1054
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Neutrosophic 1055
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic 1056
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 1057
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic 1058
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1059
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 1060
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1061
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with 1062
the exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one 1063
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic 1064
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic 1065
SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic 1066
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1067
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic 1068
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct 1069
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic 1070
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to 1071
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic 1072
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1073
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, minus all 1074
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1075
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition has two 1076
titles. a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and its corresponded 1077
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of 1078
quasi-R-styles. For any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic 1079
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic 1080
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1081
If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic 1082
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Neutrosophic 1083
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decompositions for all Neutrosophic numbers less than its 1084
Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Neutrosophic 1085
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1086
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, again and more in the operations of 1087
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decompositions acted on the all 1088
possible used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one 1089
Neutrosophic number. This Neutrosophic number is 1090
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1091
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decompositions. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1092
and GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a 1093
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1094
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic 1095
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1096
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosoph

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1097
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1098
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1099
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1100
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1101
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1102

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1103


1104
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1105

1106

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1107
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1108
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1109
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1110
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s 1111
the generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” since 1112
“Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” happens “Neutrosophic 1113
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1114
and background but “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens 1115
“Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 1116
initial framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about 1117
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the 1118
terms, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic 1119
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition”, and “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” 1120
are up. 1121
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1122
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the new 1124
terms are up. 1125

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1126
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1127
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1128
And with go back to initial structure, 1129


1130
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1131

1132

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1134
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1136
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1137
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1138
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1139
are coming up. 1140
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1141
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1142
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is related to the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1143
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1145
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1146
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an 1147
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1148
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1149
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1150
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1151
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1152
“Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” 1153
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1154
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 1155
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
amid those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1156
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1157
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1158
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1160
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1161
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1162
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1164
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1165
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1166
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1167
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1168
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1169
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1170
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1172
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1173
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1174
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1175
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1176
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1177
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1178
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1179
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1180
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the 1181
Neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 1182
have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one 1183
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected 1184
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1185
titled its Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in 1186
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1187
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1188
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1189
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE is up. The 1190
obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1191
R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , 1192
includes only all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of 1193
Neutrosophic pairs are titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 1194
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic 1195
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1196
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1197
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1199
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1200
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1201
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1202
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1203
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1204
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1205
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1206
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1207
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither 1208
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1209
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1210
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1211
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic 1212
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1213
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1214
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1215
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1216

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1217
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1218
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1219
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Neutrosophic 1220
SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 1221
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 1222
only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1223
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is up. 1224
The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1225
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two 1226
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1227
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1228

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1229
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1230
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1231
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1232

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1233
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1234
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1235

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1236
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1237
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1238
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1239
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an 1240
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1241
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1242
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1243
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1244
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1245
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1246
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1247

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

Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 1248

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1249
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, not: 1250

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1251

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1252
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1253
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1254
“Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition ” 1255
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1256
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition , 1257
is only and only 1258

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1259
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1260
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1261
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1262
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1263
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1264
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 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1267
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1268
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1269
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 1270
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of 1271
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 1272
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1273
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1274
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1275
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1276
Then 1277

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |EN SHG | .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG | .
1278
Proof. Let 1279
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1280
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

(16.7)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1281
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1282

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1286
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1287
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1288
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1290
Then 1291

= {{Eimax }, . . . , {Eimin }}.
max min
= z |Ei |
+ . . . + z |Ei |
.
= {{Vi ∈ Eimax }, . . . , {Vi ∈ Eimin }}.
max min
= z |{Vi ∈Ei }|
+ . . . + z |{Vi ∈Ei }|
.
Proof. Let 1292
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1293
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1294
There’s a new way to redefine as 1295

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1299
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1300
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1301
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1302
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1303
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1305
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1306

= {{Pimax }, . . . , {Pimin }}.
max min
= z |Pi |
+ . . . + z |Pi |
.
= {{Vi ∈ Pimax }, . . . , {Vi ∈ Pimin }}.
max min
= z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
+ . . . + z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
.
Proof. Let 1307
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
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

(16.9)
1308
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1309
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1310

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no 1313
at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be 1314
up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition could 1315
be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could 1316
have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1317
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example
(16.11)
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition taken from a connected 1318
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some 1319
SuperHyperVertices and only minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart 1320
SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1321
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1322
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1323
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1324
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1325
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1326
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1327
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1328
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1329
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1330

= {{Pimax }, . . . , {Pimin }}.
max min
= z |Pi |
+ . . . + z |Pi |
.
= {{Vi ∈ Pimax }, . . . , {Vi ∈ Pimin }}.
max min
= z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
+ . . . + z |{Vi ∈Pi }|
.
Proof. Let 1331
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
1332
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
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine 1334
as 1335

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no 1338
at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be 1339
up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition could 1340
be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 1341
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1342
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1343
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1344
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1345
solution 1346
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1348
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1349
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1350
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1351
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1352
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1353
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1354
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1355
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1356

= {{Ei=1|EN SHG |−1 , Ea∗ , Eb∗ }}.
= |EN SHG |z |EN SHG |+1 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1357
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1358
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1360

Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutro-
sophic Example (16.15)
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at 1363
least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and 1364
the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition could be 1365
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition proposes some 1366
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The 1367
latter is straightforward. 1368
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1370
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1371
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1372
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1373
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1375
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1376
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 1377
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and the Neutrosophic 1378
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1379
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 1380
is “redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1381
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1382
N eutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian − T ype − Cycle − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − T ype − Cycle − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertic
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − T ype − Cycle − Decomposition
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−T ype−Cycle−Decomposition. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1383
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1384
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1385
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1386
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 1387
and SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition coincide. 1388
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1390
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a 1391
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1394
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1395
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1397
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1398
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and 1399
reversely. 1400
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1401
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1402
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1403
letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is its 1404
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1405
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1406
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1407
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1408
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1409
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1410
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1414
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1415
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1417
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1418
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1419
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1420
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if 1421
its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1422
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1425
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1426
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1427
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1428
is 1429
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1430
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1431
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1432
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1433
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1434
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1435
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1436
∅ is 1437
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1438
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1439
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1440
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1441
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1442
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1443
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1444
independent SuperHyperSet is 1445
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1446
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1447
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1448
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1449
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1450
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1451
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1452
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1453
V is a maximal 1454
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1455
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1456
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1457
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1458
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1459
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1460
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1461
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1462
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1463
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1464
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1465
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1466
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1467
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1468
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1469
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1471
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1473
the number of 1474
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1475
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1476
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1477
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1478
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1479
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1480
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1481
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1482
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1484
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1485
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1486
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1487
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1488
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1489
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1490
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1491
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1494
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1495
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1496
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1497
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1501
(v) : strong O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1502
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1508
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1509
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1510
is a 1511
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1515
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1516
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1517
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1520
number of 1521
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1525
(v) : strong O(ESHG)

(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1530
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1531
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1532
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1534
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1535
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1539
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1540
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1541
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1542
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1543
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1544
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1545
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1546
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1550
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1551
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1556
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1557
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1561
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1562
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1563
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1565
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1567
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1568
of a dual 1569
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1573
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1574
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1576
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1579
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1580
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1581
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1585
(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) 1590
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1591
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1592
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1593
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1594
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1595
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1596
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1597
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1598
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1599
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1600
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1601
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition set; 1602
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1603
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1604
Then 1605
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1606
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1607
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1608
which is connected. Then 1609
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1610
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1611
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1612
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1613
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1615
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1616
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1617
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1618
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1619
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1620
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1622
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1623
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1624
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1625
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1626
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1627
Then 1628
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1629
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1631
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1632
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1633
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1634
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1636
Then 1637
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1638
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1640
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1641
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1642
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1644
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1645
(ii) Γ = 1; 1646
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1647
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1648
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1650
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1651
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1652
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1653
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1654
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1655
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1656
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1657
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1658
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1660
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1661
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1662
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1664
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1665
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1667

bnc ; 1668
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1669
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1671
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1672
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1673
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1674
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1675
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1676
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1677
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1678
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1679
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1680
SuperHyperSet. Then 1681
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1682
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1683
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1684

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1685
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1686
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1688
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1689
SuperHyperSet. Then 1690
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1691
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1692
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1693

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1694
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1695
Then following statements hold; 1698
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1699
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1700
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1701
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1702
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1703
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1704
Then following statements hold; 1706
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1707
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1708
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1709
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1710
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1711
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1712
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1713
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1714
statements hold; 1715
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1716
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1717
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1718
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1720
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1722
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1723
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1724
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1725
statements hold; 1726
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1727
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1729
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1731
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1733
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1734
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1736
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1737
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1738
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1740
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1742
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1745
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1747
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1748
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1749
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1751
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1753
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; 1754
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1756
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1758
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1759
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1760
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1762
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1764
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1767
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1769
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1770
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1771
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1773
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1775
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. 1778
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1779
Neutrosophic Recognition 1780
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure out 1781
what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of this 1782
Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1783
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1784
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1785
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1786
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1787
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1788
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1789
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1790
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1791
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1792
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1793
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1794
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1795
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened 1796
and what’s done. 1797
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which 1798
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. 1799
The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1800
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 1801
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1803
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition or the 1804
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic 1805
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1806
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1807
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1808
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1809
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1810
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1811
featured. 1812
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1813
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1814
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1815
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1816
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1817
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1819
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1820
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1821
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1822
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1823
featured. 1824
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1825
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1826
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1827
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1828
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1829
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1831
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1832
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1833
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1834
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled 1835
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1836
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1837
recognitions? 1838
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1839
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1840
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition? 1841
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1842
compute them? 1843
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1844
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1845
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition? 1846
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1847
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1848
and they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, are there else? 1849
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1850
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1851
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1852
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1853
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1854
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1855
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1856
highlighted. 1857
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1858
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1859
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1860
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1861
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1862
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, finds the 1863
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 1864
SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 1865
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 1866
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1867
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, 1868
the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results 1869
are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and the 1870
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition. The clarifications, instances and 1871
literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1872
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1873
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the 1874
“Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes 1875
the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded 1876
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 1877
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 1878
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ 1879
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 1880
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for 1881
the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this research are, 1882
figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1883
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1884
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1885
Forms 1886
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1887
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1891
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1892
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1893
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1894
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1895
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1896
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1897
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1898
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1899
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1900
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1901
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1902
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1903
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1904
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1907
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1909
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1910
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1911
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1912
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1914
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1915
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1918
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1919
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1922
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1923
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1924
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1925
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1926
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1927
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1928
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1929
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1930
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1931
Extreme coefficient; 1932
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1933
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1934
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1936
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1937
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1938
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1942
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1943
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1944
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1949
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1951
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1952
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1956
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1959
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1960
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1965
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1966
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1968
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1970
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1979
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1980
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1984
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1985
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1986
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1987
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1988
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1989
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1990
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1991
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1994
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1995
SuperHyperDuality. 2000


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3 , V13 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V2i+1i=05 }.



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2063
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2064
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 3

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 2065
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 2069
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2073
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2074
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2075
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality

.
Proof. Let 2076
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2087
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2088
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2098
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2101
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 2106
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2107
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2108
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2109
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2110
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2111
solution 2113
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2120

= {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 |
Proof. Let 2123
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2124
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2125

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2130
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2135
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2143
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2146
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2147
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2148

∃!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 2153
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2154
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2161
Forms 2163
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2164
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2168
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2169
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2170
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2171
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2173
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2174
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2175
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2176
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2178
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2179
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2180
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2181
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2184
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2185
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2186
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2191
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2192
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2194
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2199
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2200
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2201
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2202
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2203
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2208
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2213
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2214
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2215
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2219
coefficient; 2220
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2221
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2224
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2225
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2228
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2229
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2236
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2237
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2245
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2247
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2256
coefficient. 2257
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2261
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2262
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2263
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2264
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2265
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2266
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2267
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2268
SuperHyperJoin. 2269
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V5 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V2i+1i=05 }.


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin

.
Proof. Let 2343
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2347
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2351

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

.
Proof. Let 2354
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2365
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2366

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2376
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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 |
Proof. Let 2379
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 2384
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2385
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2386
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2388
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2389
solution 2391
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2398

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 |
Proof. Let 2401
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2402

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2406
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2407
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2408
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2413
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2421

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

.
Proof. Let 2424
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2425

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2429
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2430
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2431
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2432
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2439
Forms 2441
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2442
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2446
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2447
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2448
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2449
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2451
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2452
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2453
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2454
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2456
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2457
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2458
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2459
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2462
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2464
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2467
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2469
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2470
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2477
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2478
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2479
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2480
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2486
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2488
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2489
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2497
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2499
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2504
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2506
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2507
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2514
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2515
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2523
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2525
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2534
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2539
SuperHyperPerfect. 2547
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2 , V7 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2i+1i=05 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 6 .



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2621
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2625
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2629
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2632
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2643
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2644

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2654
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2657
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 2662
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2663
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2664
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2666
solution 2669
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2676

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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2679
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2680

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2684
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2685
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2686
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2691
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2699
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2702

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2703

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2707
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2708
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2709
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2710
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2717
Forms 2719
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2720
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2724
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2725
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2726
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2727
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2729
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2730
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2731
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2732
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2734
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2735
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2736
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2737
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2740
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2742
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2747
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2748
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2750
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2755
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2756
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2757
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2764
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2766
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2775
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2777
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2784
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2785
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2792
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2793
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2801
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2803
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2812
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2817
SuperHyperTotal. 2825
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


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

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

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

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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 Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E5 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
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 R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
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)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+2i=011 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 }.

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2899
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2903
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2907
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2910
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2921
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2922
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2932
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2935
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2940
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2941
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2944
solution 2947
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2954

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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2957
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2958

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2962
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2963
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2969
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2977
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2980
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2981

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2985
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2986
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2987
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2988
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2995
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2996
Forms 2997
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2998
SuperHyperConnected). 2999
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 3003
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 3004
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 3005
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 3006
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 3007
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 3008
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 3010
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 3011
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 3012
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 3013
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 3014
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 3015
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3017
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 3018
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 3019
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 3020
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3023
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 3025
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3026
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3027
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3028
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3030
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3031
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3034
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 3035
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3038
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 3039
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 3040
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 3041
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 3042
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 3043
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 3044
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 3045
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 3047
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 3048
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3049
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 3050
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 3051
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3052
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 3055
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3058
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3059
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3060
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3063
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3064
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3065
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3067
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3068
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3071
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3072
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3075
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3076
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3079
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3082
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3085
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3087
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3090
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3093
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3096
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3097
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3101
SuperHyperConnected. 3109
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+119
i=11
, V22 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E5 }.

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

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

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 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E2 , E3 , E4 }.

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

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.

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 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3183
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3191
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3194
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3205
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3206
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3216
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3219
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3224
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3225
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3228
solution 3231
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3238
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic 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)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3246
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3247
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3253
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3261
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3264
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3266

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3269
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3270
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3271
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3272
17 Background 3280
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3281
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3282
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3283
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3284
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3285
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3286
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3287
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3288
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3289
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3290
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3291
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3292
results based on initial background. 3293
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3294
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3295
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3296
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3297
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3298
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3299
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3300
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3301
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3302
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3303
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3304
SuperHyperNumbers. 3305
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3306
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3307
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3308
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3309
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3310
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3311
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3312
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3313
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3314
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3315
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3316
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3317
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3318
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3319
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3320
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3321
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3322
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3323
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3324
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3325
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3326
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3327
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3328
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3329
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3330
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3331
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3332
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3333
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3334
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3335
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3336
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3337
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3338
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3339
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3340
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3341
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3342
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3343
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3344
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3345
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3346
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3347
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3348
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3349
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3350
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3351
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3352
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3353
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3354
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3355
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3356
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3357
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3358
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3359
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3360
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3361
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3362
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3363
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3364
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3365
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3366
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3367
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3368
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [133] by Henry 3369
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3370
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3371
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [134] by Henry Garrett 3372
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3373
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3374
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [135] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3375
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3376
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3377
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [136] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3378
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3379
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [139] by 3380
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3381
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3382
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [140] by Henry 3383
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3384
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3385
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [143] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3386
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3387
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [146] by Henry 3388
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3389
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3390
in Ref. [147] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3391
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3392
Ref. [148] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3393
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3394
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [149] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3395
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3396
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [150] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3397
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3398
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [151] by Henry Garrett 3399
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3400
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [162] by Henry 3401
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3402
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3403
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [163] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–163], there 3404
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3405
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [164–258]. 3406
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3407
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [259, 260]. 3408
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3409
proposed as book in Ref. [247] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3410
Scholar and has more than 4190 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3411
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3412
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3413
theory. 3414
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3415
proposed as book in Ref. [248] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3416
Scholar and has more than 5189 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3417
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3418
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3419
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3420
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3421
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3422
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3423
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3424
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3425
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–163] alongside scientific 3426
research books at [164–258]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3427
of high readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [259, 260]. 3428
References 3429
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3430
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3431
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3432
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3433
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3434
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3435
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3436
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3437
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3438
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3439
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3440
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3441
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3442
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3443
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3444
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3445
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3446
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3447
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3448
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3449
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3450
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3451
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3452
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3453
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3454
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3455
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3456
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3457
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3458
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3459
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3460
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3461
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3462
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3463
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3464
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3465
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3466
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3467
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3468
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3469
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3470
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3471
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3472
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3473
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3474
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3475
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3476
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3477
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3478
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3479
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3480
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3481
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3482
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3483
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3484
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3485
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3486
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3487
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3488
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3489
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3490
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3491
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3492
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3493
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3494
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3495
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3496
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3497
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3498
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3499
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3500
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3501
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3502
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3503
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3505
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3509
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3510
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3511
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3512
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3513
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3514
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3515
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3516
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3517
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3518
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3519
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3520
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3521
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3522
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3523
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3524
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3525
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3526
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3527
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3528
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3529
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3530
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3531
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3533
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7796334). 3534
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3536
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3537
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3539
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3540
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3541
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3542
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791982). 3543
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3545
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3546
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3547
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3548
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3551
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3552
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3553
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3554
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3557
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3558
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3559
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3560
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3563
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3564
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3566
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3568
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3569
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3570
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3572
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3575
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3576
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3577
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3578
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3579
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3581
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3587
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3588
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3590
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3591
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3593
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3594
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3595
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3596
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3597
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3599
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3605
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3606
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3608
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3611
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3613
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3615
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3617
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3619
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3620
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3623
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3625
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3626
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3629
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3631
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3633
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3635
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3637
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3638
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3641
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3642
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3644
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3647
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3649
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3651
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3653
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3654
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3656
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3658
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3660
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3662
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3663
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3664
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3665
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3666
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3668
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3669
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3670
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3671
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3674
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3676
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3677
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3680
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3682
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3683
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3686
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3688
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3690
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3692
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3693
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3694
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3695
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3698
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3699
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3700
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3701
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3704
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3705
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3706
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3707
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3710
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3711
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3712
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3713
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3716
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3717
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3718
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3719
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3722
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3723
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3724
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3725
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3727
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3728
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3731
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3732
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3733
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3734
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3737
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3738
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3739
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3740
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3743
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3745
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3746
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3749
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3751
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3752
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3754
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3755
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3758
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3761
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3763
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3764
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3766
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3767
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3769
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3770
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3771
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3772
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3773
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3774
107. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3775
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3776
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3778
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3779
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3780
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3781
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3782
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3783
110. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3784
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3785
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3786
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3787
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3790
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3791
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3794
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3795
113. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3796
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3798
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3799
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3802
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3803
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3806
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3807
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3808
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3809
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3810
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3811
117. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3812
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3813
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3814
118. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3815
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3816
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3817
119. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3818
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3819
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3820
120. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3821
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3822
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3823
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3824
121. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3825
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3826
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3827
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3828
122. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3829
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3830
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3831
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3832
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3833
123. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3834
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3835
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3836
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3837
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3838
124. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3839
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3840
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3841
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3842
125. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3843
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3844
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3845
126. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3846
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3847
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3849
127. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3850
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3851
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3852
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3853
128. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3854
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3855
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3856
129. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3857
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3858
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3859
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3860
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3861
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3862
130. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3863
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3864
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3865
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3866
131. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3867
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3868
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3869
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3870
132. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3871
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3872
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3873
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3874
133. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3875
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3876
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3877
134. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3878
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3879
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3880
135. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3882
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3883
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3884
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3885
136. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3886
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3887
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3888
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3889
137. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3890
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3891
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3892
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3893
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3895
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3896
139. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3897
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3898
140. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3900
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3901
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3902
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3907
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3911
143. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3912
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3913
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3914
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3915
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3918
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3920
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3921
146. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3922
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3923
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3927
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3928
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3930
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3931
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3934
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3935
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3937
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3938
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3941
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3942
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3944
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3945
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3947
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3952
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3953
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3957
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3958
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3961
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3964
158. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3965
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3966
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3967
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3968
159. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3969
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3970
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3971
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3972
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3975
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3976
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3979
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3980
162. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3981
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 3982
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3983
163. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3984
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3986
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3987
164. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3988
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793875). 3989
165. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3990
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7792307). 3991
166. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3992
167. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3994
168. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3996
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3997
169. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3998
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3999
170. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4000
171. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4002
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4003
172. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4004
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4005
173. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4006
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4007
174. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4008
175. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4010
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4011
176. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4012
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4013
177. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4014
178. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4016
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4017
179. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4018
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4019
180. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4020
181. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4022
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4023
182. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4024
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4025
183. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4026
184. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4028
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4029
185. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4030
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4031
186. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4032
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4033
187. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4034
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4035
188. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4036
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4037
189. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4038
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4039
190. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4040
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4041
191. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4042
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4043
192. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4044
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4045
193. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4046
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4047
194. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4048
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4049
195. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4050
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4051
196. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4052
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4053
197. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4054
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4055
198. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4057
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4058
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4059
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4060
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4061
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4062
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4063
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4064
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4065
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4067
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4068
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4069
205. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4070
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4071
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4072
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4073
207. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4074
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4075
208. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4076
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4077
209. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4078
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4079
210. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4080
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4081
211. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4082
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4083
212. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4084
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4085
213. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4086
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4087
214. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4088
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4089
215. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4090
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4091
216. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4092
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4093
217. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4094
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4095
218. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4096
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4097
219. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4098
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4099
220. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4100
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4101
221. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4102
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4103
222. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4104
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4105
223. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4106
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4107
224. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4108
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4109
225. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4110
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4111
226. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4112
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4113
227. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4114
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4115
228. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4116
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4117
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4118
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4119
230. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4120
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4121
231. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4122
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4123
232. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4124
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4125
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4126
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4127
234. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4128
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4129
235. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4130
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4131
236. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4132
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4133
237. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4134
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4135
238. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4137
239. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4138
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4139
240. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4141
241. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4142
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4143
242. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4144
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4145
243. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4146
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4147
244. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4149
245. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4150
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4151
246. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4152
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4153
247. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4154
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4155
248. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4156
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4157
249. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4158
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4159
250. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4160
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4161
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4162
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4163
252. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4164
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4165
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4166
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4167
254. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4168
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4169
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4170
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4171
256. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4172
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4173
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4174
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4175
258. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4176
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4177
259. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4178
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4179
260. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4180
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4181
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

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 in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · April 2023

424 PUBLICATIONS 10,144 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

Decompress On Super Decompensation 5

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 7

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 8

In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 10

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 11

(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 12

SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 13

is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 14

expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria 15

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is 17

called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 18

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 19

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is 22

called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 23

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 24

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 25

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 28

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 30

(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 31

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 32

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 33

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 36

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 37

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 38

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 39

conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 40

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 41

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 43

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 46

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 47

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 48

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 49

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 50

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 51

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 53

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 54

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 56

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 57

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 58

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 59

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 60

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 61

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 62

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 63

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition 64

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 65

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 68

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 69

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 70

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 71

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 72

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 73

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 74