New Ideas On Super EULA by Hyper Eulogy of Eulerian-Path-Cut in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369881480
New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer's

Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7809219
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
431 PUBLICATIONS 10,803 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 07 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 2
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10
Eulerian-Path-Cut pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ P : P is
a SuperHyperPath and it has
the all number of SuperHyperEdges;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called 15
∀Ea ∈ P : P is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 19
∀Va ∈ P : P is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 21
∀Va ∈ P : P is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 23
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and 24
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut). 25
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 26
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 27
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 28
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic 29
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and 30
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 31
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 32
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 33
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 34
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of 35
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 36
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 37
and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 38
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 42
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 43
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 44
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 45
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 46
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 47
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 48
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 49
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; and the 50
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 51
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 52
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 55
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 56
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 57
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 58
conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 59
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 60
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 61
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 62
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 65
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 66
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 67
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; a 68
Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 69
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 72
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 73
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 75
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 76
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 77
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 80
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 81
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 82
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; and the 84
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 85
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 86
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 89
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 90
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 91
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 92
cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 94
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this 95
scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 96
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Two different 97
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and 98
the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 99
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 100
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 101
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 102
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 103
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 104
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 105
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 106
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 107
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 108
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 109
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 110
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 111
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 112
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 113
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 114
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 115
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 116
δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 117
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 118
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 119
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 120
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 121
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is a 122
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 123
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 124
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 125
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 126
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 127
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 128
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 129
version of a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 130
make a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut more understandable. For the sake of having 131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 132
“SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 133
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 134
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 135
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the 136
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 137
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 138
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 139
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 140
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 141
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 142
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 143
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 144
based on a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 145
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 146
have all SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut until the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, then it’s officially 147
called a “SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut . 148
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a 149
“SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment 150
since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 151
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 152
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic 153
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut ”. The 154
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 155
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 156
assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 157
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a 158
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” if 159
the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of 160
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a 161
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 162
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 163
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 164
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 165
are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut”, 166
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 167
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 168
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” where it’s 169
the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 170
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 171
.] SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 172
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 173
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 174
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 175
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s only one 176
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 177
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 178
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 179
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 180
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 181
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 182
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 183
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 184
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 185
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 186
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 187
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 188
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 189
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 190
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 191
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 192
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 193
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 194
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 195
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 196
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 197
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 198
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 199
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 200
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 201
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 202
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 203
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 205
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 206
either the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut or the strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 207
in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 208
called SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and the strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, called 209
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, some general results are introduced. Beyond 210
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 211
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 212
any style of a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 213
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 214
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity 215
with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 216
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 217
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Cancer’s 218
Neutrosophic Recognition 219
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 220
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 221
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 222
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 223
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 224
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 225
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 226
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 227
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 228
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 229
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 230
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 231
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 232
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 233
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 234
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 235
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 236
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 237
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 238
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 239
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 240
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 241
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 242
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 243
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 244
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 245
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 246
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 247
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 248
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 249
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 250
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 251
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 252
formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 253
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 254
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 255
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 256
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 257
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 258
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 259
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 260
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 261
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 262
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 263
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 264
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 265
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 266
either the optimal SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut or the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in 267
those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 268
SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 269
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 270
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. There isn’t any 271
formation of any SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 272
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 273
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 274
find the “ amount of SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” of either individual of cells or the groups 275
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 276
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 277
cells? 278
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 279
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 280
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 281
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 282
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” and “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” on 283
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 284
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 285
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 286
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 287
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 288
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 289
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 290
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 291
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 292
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 293
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 294
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 295
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and 296
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, are figured out in sections “ 297
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” and “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut”. In the sense of 298
tackling on getting results and in Eulerian-Path-Cut to make sense about continuing the 299
research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are 300
introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out 301
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 302
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there 303
are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 304
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 305
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The 306
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 307
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 308
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 309
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 310
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut”, “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut”, “Results on 311
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 312
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 313
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 314
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut”. The 315
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 316
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 317
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 318
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 319
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 320
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 321
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 322
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 323
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 324
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 325
Research On the Redeemed Ways 326
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 327
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [168],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 328
Set](Ref. [168],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 329
(NSHG)](Ref. [168],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 330
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [168],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [168], 331
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 332
(NSHG)](Ref. [168],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 333
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [168],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 334
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [168],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 335
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [168]. 336
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 337
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 338
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [168],Definition 2.1,p.1). 339
Let X be a Eulerian-Path-Cut of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by

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

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 340
+
]− 0, 1 [. 341
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [168],Definition 2.2,p.2). 342
Let X be a Eulerian-Path-Cut of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by

x. A single valued Neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by
truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a
falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1].
A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,

indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [168],Definition 343
2.5,p.2). 344
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 345
pair S = (V, E), where 346
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 347
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 348
1, 2, . . . , n); 349
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 350
V; 351
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 352
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 353
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 354
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 355
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 356
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 357
(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 . 358
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 359
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 360
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 361
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 362
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 363
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 364
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 366
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 367
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 368
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 369
(Ref. [168],Definition 2.7,p.3). 370
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 371
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 372
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 373
characterized as follow-up items. 374
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 375
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 376
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 377
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 378
HyperEdge; 379
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 380
SuperEdge; 381
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 382
SuperHyperEdge. 383
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 384
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 385
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [168], Definition 2.7, p.3). 386
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 387
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 388
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 389
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 390
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 391
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 392
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)). 393
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 394
pair S = (V, E), where 395
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 396
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 397
1, 2, . . . , n); 398
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 399
V; 400
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 401
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 402
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 403
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 404
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 405
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 406
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 407
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 408
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 409
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 410
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 411
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 412
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 413
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 414
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 415
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 416
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 417
(Ref. [168],Definition 2.7,p.3). 418
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 419
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 420
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 421
characterized as follow-up items. 422
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 423
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 424
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 425
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 426
HyperEdge; 427
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 428
SuperEdge; 429
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 430
SuperHyperEdge. 431
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 432
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 433
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 434
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 435
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 436
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 437
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 438
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 439
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 440
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 441
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 442
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 443
given SuperHyperEdges; 444
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 445
SuperHyperEdges; 446
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 447
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 448
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 449
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 450
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 451
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 452
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 453
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 454
common SuperVertex. 455
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 456
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 457
of following conditions hold: 458
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 459
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 460
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 461
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 462
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 467
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 468
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 469
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. 470
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 471
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 472
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 473
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 474
SuperHyperPath . 475
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 476
(Ref. [168],Definition 5.3,p.7). 477
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). A

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 478
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 479
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 480
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 481
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 482
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 483
(NSHE)). (Ref. [168],Definition 5.4,p.7). 484
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 485
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 486
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 487
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 488
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 489
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 490
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 491
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 493
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 494
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 496
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 497
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 498
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 499
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 500
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut). 501
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 503
either V 0 or E 0 is called 504
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called 505
∀Ea ∈ P : P is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is 507
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 508
∀Ea ∈ P : P is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 509
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is 510
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 511
∀Va ∈ P : P is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is 512
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 513
∀Va ∈ P : P is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 514
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 515
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 516
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and Neutrosophic 517
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 518
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut). 519
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 521
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 522
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 525
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 526
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 527
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 528
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 529
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 530
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 531
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 534
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 535
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 536
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 538
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 540
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic 541
re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and 542
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 543
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 544
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 545
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 546
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 547
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 548
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 549
Extreme coefficient; 550
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 551
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 554
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 555
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 556
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 557
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 558
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 559
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power 560
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 561
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 562
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 565
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 567
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 568
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 571
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 574
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 575
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 576
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 578
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 580
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 583
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 584
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 585
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 586
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 587
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 589
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 591
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 594
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 595
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 596
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 597
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 598
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 599
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power 600
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 601
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut). 602
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 603
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 604
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut such that either of the following expressions hold for the 605
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 606
|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 607
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 608
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of 609
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut such that either of the following 610
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 611
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 612
|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. 613
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 614
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 615
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, there’s a need to 616
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 617
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 618
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 619
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 620
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 621
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 622
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 623
understandable. 624
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 625
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 626
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 627
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 628
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 629
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 630
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 631
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 632
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 633
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 634
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut more Neutrosophicly understandable. 635

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, there’s a need to 636
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut”. The 637
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 638
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 639
assign to the values. 640
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 641
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the Table (3) holds. 642
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The Eulerian-Path-Cut 643
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 644
Forms 645
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 646
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 647
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 648
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 649
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 650
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 651
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 653
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 654
s-independent criteria 655
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 656
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 657
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 658
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Any k-function Eulerian-Path-Cut like E is called 660
Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Eulerian-Path-Cut like E is called 661
Extreme Variable. 662
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 663
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 664
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 666
called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 667
Expectation criteria 668
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 669
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. an Extreme number is called Extreme 671
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 672
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 673
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let m and n propose special 674
Eulerian-Path-Cut. Then with m ≥ 4n, 675
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 676
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 677
independently with probability Eulerian-Path-Cut p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 678
H := G[S]. 679
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Extreme number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the Extreme
number of crossings of H. The trivial bound noted above, when applied to H, yields the
inequality Z ≥ cr(H) ≥ Y − 3X. By linearity of Extreme Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
Now E(X) = pn, E(Y ) = p2 m (each SuperHyperEdge having some SuperHyperEnds)

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 680
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
681
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 682
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points 683
in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane passing 684
through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 685
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 686
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 687
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 688
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 689
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 690
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 691
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 692
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points 694
in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit SuperHyperDistance. 695
Then k < 5n4/3 . 696
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 697
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Draw a SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle 698
around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number P of these 699
SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0n−1 ni = n and 700

1
P n−1
k=2 i=0 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with 701
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 702
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 703
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 704
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 705
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 706
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 707
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 708
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 709
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 710
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 711
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 712
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let X be a nonnegative 713
Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 714
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. 715
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 716
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let Xn be a nonnegative 717
integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 718
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 719
Proof. 720
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 721
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. A special 722
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 723
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. 725
Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, 726
where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 727
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 728
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 729
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 730
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 731
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 732
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 733
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: 734
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 735
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 736
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 737
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 738
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 739
number at most k. 740
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 741
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 743
called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance 744
criteria 745
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let X be an Extreme 747
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 748
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t be a 750
positive real number. Then 751
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
752
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let Xn be an Extreme 754
Variable in a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 755
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 756
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 758
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 759
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 760
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set 762
f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 763
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 764
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. As in the proof of related Theorem, the result 766
is straightforward. 767
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f 769
and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 770
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 771
or 772
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 773
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 775
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 776
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let P be a monotone property of 778
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 779
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 780
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 781
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 782
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 783
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let F be a fixed Extreme SuperHyperGraph. 785
Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a copy of F as an 786
Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 787
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let F be a nonempty 789
balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 790
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 791
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 792
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 794
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.3)
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 795
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 796
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 797
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 798
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 799
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 800
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 801
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 802
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 803
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 804
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 805
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Path-Cut
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
806
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 809
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 810
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 811
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 812
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 813
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 814

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 815

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + z.
816
straightforward. 819

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
820


= {E4 , E5 , E1 , E2 }.
= 2z 5 + 2z 3 .
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X
= z |Vi ∈VN SHG | .
824

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
828




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
832

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


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

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




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
848

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


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
856

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




= {E1 , E2 }.
= 2z 2 .
= {V2 , V1 , V3 }.
= 2z 5 + z 3 .
864


= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }.
= 5z 2 .
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X
868

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }.
X
= z |Ei ∈EN SHG | .
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X
872


= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }.
X
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X
876

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }.
X
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X
880




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

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


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

= {E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }.
X
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X


896
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 897
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut 898
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 899
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 900
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 901
them. 902
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 903
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 904
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 905
any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 906
of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 907
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 908
an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 909
but not all of them. 910
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is at least 911
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 912
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 913
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 914
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut in 915
some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the 916
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 917
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. 918
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut has, the least Extreme cardinality, the
lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut with the least Extreme cardinality, the 919
lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 920
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 921
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 922
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Path-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 923
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Path-Cut is the cardinality 924
of 925
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

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

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,

literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound
for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. It’s the
contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to deny
this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and cycle
as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes, are
well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the examples-classes
and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 926
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 927
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 928
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 929
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 930
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 931
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 932
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 933
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut decorates the Extreme

SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this Extreme
style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum
Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The
lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum Extreme groups of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges
and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the
connectedness of the used Extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its Extreme
properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no Extreme
connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme SuperHyperVertex has
no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. Since at least two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the Extreme background of the
Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The Extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no
Extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices make the
Extreme version of Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Extreme setting of
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Extreme
adjective for the initial Extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Extreme
appearance of the loop Extreme version of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge and this
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Extreme adjective “loop” on the
basic Extreme framework engages one Extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens
in this Extreme setting. With these Extreme bases, on an Extreme SuperHyperGraph,
there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an Extreme
R-Eulerian-Path-Cut has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut has the Extreme cardinality at least an Extreme

SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme
SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut since either the Extreme
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since
there’s no Extreme usage of this Extreme framework and even more there’s no Extreme
connection inside or the Extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its
consequences, there’s an Extreme contradiction with the term “Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut”
since the maximum Extreme cardinality never happens for this Extreme style of the
Extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no Extreme connection inside as
mentioned in first Extreme case in the forms of drawback for this selected Extreme
SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Extreme case implies having the Extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
Extreme style on the every Extreme elements of this Extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that some Extreme amount of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle Extreme style. The Extreme cardinality of the
v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Extreme SuperHyperSet
But the lower Extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum Extreme cardinality of the
maximum Extreme cardinality ends up the Extreme discussion. The first Extreme term
refers to the Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph but this key point is
enough since there’s an Extreme SuperHyperClass of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph has
no on-quasi-triangle Extreme style amid some amount of its Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an Extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices from
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Extreme amount of Extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The Extreme cardinality of this Extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the Extreme case is occurred in the minimum Extreme situation. To sum
them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Extreme cardinality such that
Contains some Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 934
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 935
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 936
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 937
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every Extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least
no Extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut.
Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an Extreme
style-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The formal definition
is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and only
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut but with
slightly differences in the maximum Extreme cardinality amid those Extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Extreme cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 938
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
939
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is

fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended SuperHyperVertices
but in an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not
unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is at 940
least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 941
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 942
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 943
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 944
Eulerian-Path-Cut in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge 945
with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 946
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. 947
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 948
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 949
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 950
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 951
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 952
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 953
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 954
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 955
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 956
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 957
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut where 958
the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an 959
Extreme embedded R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 960
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 961
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 962
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 963
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 964
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 965
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. The interior types of the 966
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 967
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 968
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 969
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 970
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. Thus Extreme exterior 971
SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 972
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 973
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut, there’s the usage of 974
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 975
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 976
Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 977
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 978
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme 979
R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. The Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 980
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, 981
the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut with the inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 982
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. To sum them up, 983
in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 984
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of 985
the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme 986
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 987
all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge 988
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme 989
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 990
all of them. 991
The main definition of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut has two titles. an Extreme 992
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 993
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 994
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut with that quasi-maximum Extreme 995
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 996
there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme 997
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 998
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cuts for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded 999
maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut ends up but this essence 1000
starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut, again and more in the 1001
operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cuts acted on the all possible 1002
used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. 1003
This Extreme number is 1004
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cuts. Let 1005
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Cut be an Extreme 1006
number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut. Then 1007
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Cut ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut is re-formalized 1008
and redefined as follows. 1009
GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Cut ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1010
technical definition for the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut . 1011
GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Cut =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1012
poses the upcoming expressions.

Eulerian-Path-Cut 1013
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1014
= maxzExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1015

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1016


1017
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1018
= max zExtreme Number

1019

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1020
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1021
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1022
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1023
Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Cut” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1024
Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Cut” since “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Cut” happens “Extreme 1025
Eulerian-Path-Cut” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background 1026
but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut” in 1027
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 1028
there are some ambiguities about the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To 1029
get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme 1030
Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Cut”, and “Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut” are up. 1031
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Cut 1032
be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme 1033
Eulerian-Path-Cut and the new terms are up. 1034

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1035
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1036
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1037
And with go back to initial structure, 1038


1039
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1040
= max zExtreme Number

1041

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1042
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut if for any of 1043
them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme 1044
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme 1045
exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1046
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1047
are coming up. 1048
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,

Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. The

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1049
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1050
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut is
related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut is up. The obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut is an Extreme
SuperHyperSet includes only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex. But the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is up.
To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut.

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1051
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1052
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1053
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1054
Eulerian-Path-Cut and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut. Since it’s 1055
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut. There isn’t only less than two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Eulerian-Path-Cut, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1056
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1057
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1058
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1059
“Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut” 1060
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1061
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut, 1062
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut amid those obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1063
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1064
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Cut if 1065
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1066
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1067
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1068
them. 1069
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1070
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1071
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1072
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1073
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1074
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut with the least 1075
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1076
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1077
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1078
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1079
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. 1080
Since it doesn’t have 1081
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1082
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1083
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1084
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1085
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1086
R-Eulerian-Path-Cut. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that there’s 1087
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there 1088
are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the 1089
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1090
titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the 1091
Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only 1092
one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1093
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1094
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1095
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Cut, VESHE , is an Extreme 1096
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any 1097
kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme 1098
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1099
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality 1100
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 1101
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, 1102
in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1103
R-Eulerian-Path-Cut only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior 1104
Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s 1105
any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1106
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1107
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1108
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1109
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Path-Cut, is up. There’s neither empty 1110
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1111
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1112
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1113
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1114
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Cut

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−CutSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−Cut = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut. The Extreme 1115
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1116

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1117
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1118
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1120
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1121
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1122
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1123
non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1124
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut is an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1125
includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1126
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1127

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1128
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1129
Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1130
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1131

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut . 1132
Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1133
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1134

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1135
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1136
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1137
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut and it’s 1138
an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut. Since it’s 1139
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1141
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1142
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1143
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1144

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut , 1145

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut , 1146
not: 1147

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1148

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1149
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1150
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1151
“Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut ” 1152
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1153
Extreme Eulerian-Path-Cut , 1154
is only and only 1155

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1156
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1157
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1158
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1159
SuperHyperClasses. 1160
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1161

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X
Proof. Let 1162
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1163
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1164
There’s a new way to redefine as 1165
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 1166
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. The latter 1167
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1169
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1170
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1171
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1172
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in the Example (16.5)
Then 1173

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1174
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1175
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1176
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.7)

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1181
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1182
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1183
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1184

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.9)
1186
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1187
a new way to redefine as 1188

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1192
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1193
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1194
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1195
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1196
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1197
Then 1198

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1199
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
1200
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1201

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Thus the 1205
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1206
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus 1207
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1208
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut taken from a connected Extreme 1209
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1210
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1211
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1212
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in the Example (16.11)
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1213
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1214
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1215
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1216
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1217
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1218
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1219
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1220

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1221
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1222
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1224

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Thus the 1227
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1228
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 1229
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1231
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1232
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1235
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1236
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1237
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1238
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1239
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1240
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1241
Then, 1242

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in the Example (16.13)
Proof. Let 1243
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1244
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1246

is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Thus the notion 1249
of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut could 1250
be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut proposes some longest 1251
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1252
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1254
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1255
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1256
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1257
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1258
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.15)
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1259
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1260
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and the Extreme 1261
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, some general results are introduced. 1262
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is “redefined” on 1263
the positions of the alphabets. 1264
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Then 1265
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Cut =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Cutof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Cut
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−P ath−Cut. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1266
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1267
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1268
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1269
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and 1270
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut coincide. 1271
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an 1273
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1274
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1276
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1277
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1278
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is its 1279
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and reversely. 1280
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 1281
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1282
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is its 1283
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and reversely. 1284
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1285
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut isn’t 1286
well-defined. 1287
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1288
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1289
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1290
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1292
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1293
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1294
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1295
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is 1296
well-defined. 1297
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1298
its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1299
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is well-defined. 1300
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1302
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1303
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut is well-defined. 1304
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1305
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1306
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1307
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1308
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1309
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1310
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1311
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1312
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1313
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1314
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1315
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1316
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1317
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1318
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1319
independent SuperHyperSet is 1320
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1321
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1322
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1323
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1324
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1325
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1326
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1327
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1328
maximal 1329
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1330
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1331
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1332
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1333
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1334
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1335
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1336
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1337
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1338
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1339
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1340
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1341
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1342
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1343
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1344
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1345
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then the number 1347
of 1348
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1349
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1350
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1351
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1352
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1353
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1354
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1355
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1356
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1358
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1359
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1360
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1361
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1362
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1363
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1364
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1365
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1368
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1369
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1370
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1371
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1375
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1376
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1377
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1380
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1381
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1382
is a 1383
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1387
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1388
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1389
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1392
number of 1393
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1397
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1398
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1399
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1400
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1401
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1402
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1404
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1405
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1409
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1410
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1411
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1412
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1413
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1414
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1415
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1416
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1420
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1422
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1423
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1424
setting of dual 1425
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1429
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1430
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1431
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1433
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1435
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1436
dual 1437
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1441
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1442
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1443
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1445
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1446
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1447
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1453
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1454
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1455
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1456
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1457
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1458
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1459
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1460
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1461
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1462
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, then 1463
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut set; 1464
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1465
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1466
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1467
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1468
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1469
connected. Then 1470
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1471
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1472
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1473
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1474
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1476
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1477
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1478
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1479
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1480
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1481
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1482
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1483
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1484
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1485
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1486
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Then 1487
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1488
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1490
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1491
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1492
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1493
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Then 1495
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1496
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1498
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1499
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1500
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1502
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1503
(ii) Γ = 1; 1504
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1505
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1506
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1507
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1508
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1509
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1510
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1511
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1512
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1513
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1514
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1515
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1517
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1518
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1519
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1521
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1522
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1524

bnc ; 1525
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1526
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1528
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1529
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1530
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut for N SHF; 1531
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1532
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1533
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1534
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1535
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1536
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1537
SuperHyperSet. Then 1538
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1539
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut for N SHF; 1540
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1541

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1542
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1543
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1544
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1545
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1546
SuperHyperSet. Then 1547
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1548
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut for N SHF : (V, E); 1549
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1550

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1551
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut for 1552
N SHF : (V, E). 1553
following statements hold; 1555
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1556
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, then S is an 1557
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1558
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1559
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, then S is a dual 1560
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1561
following statements hold; 1563
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1564
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1565
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1567
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, then S is a dual 1568
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1569
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1570
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1571
hold; 1572
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1573
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1574
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1575
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1577
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1579
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1580
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1581
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1582
hold; 1583
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1584
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1586
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1588
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1590
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1591
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1593
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1594
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1595
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1597
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1599
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1602
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1604
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1605
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1606
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1608
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1610
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 1611
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1613
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1615
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1616
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1617
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1619
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1621
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1624
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1626
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1627
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1628
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1630
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1632
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1635
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1636
Recognition 1637
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1638
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1639
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1640
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1641
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1642
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1643
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1644
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1645
long-term Extreme function. 1646
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1647
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1648
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1649
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1650
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1651
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1652
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1653
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1654
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1655
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1656
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1657
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 1658
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1659
find either the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut or the Extreme 1660
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1661
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1662
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1663
SuperHyperModel 1664
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1665
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1666
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1667
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1668
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1669
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1670
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1671
the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1672
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1673
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1674
SuperHyperModel 1675
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1676
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1677
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1678
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1679
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1680
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1682
is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. 1683
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1684
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1685
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1686
The SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut are defined 1687
on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1688
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1689
recognitions? 1690
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 1691
and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut? 1692
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1693
compute them? 1694
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1695
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut? 1696
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut do 1697
a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on 1698
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, are there else? 1699
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1700
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1701
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1702
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1703
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1704
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1705
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1706
highlighted. 1707
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1708
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1709
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1710
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 1711
the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1712
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, finds the convenient background to implement some 1713
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1714
are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks 1715
of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s 1716
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1717
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1718
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1719
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. The clarifications, 1720
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 1721
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1722
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the 1723
“Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes 1724
the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded 1725
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 1726
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 1727
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ 1728
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 1729
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 1730
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this research are,
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut
3. Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1731
figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1732
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1733
Forms 1735
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1736
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1737
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1738
V 0 or E 0 is called 1739
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1740
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1741
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1742
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1743
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1744
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1745
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1746
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1747
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1748
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1749
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1750
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1751
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1752
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1753
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1755
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1756
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1757
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1758
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1759
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1760
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1761
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1763
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1764
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1765
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1766
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1767
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1768
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1769
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1770
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1771
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1772
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1774
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1775
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1776
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1777
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1778
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1779
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1781
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1791
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1796
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1798
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1799
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1803
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1805
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1806
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1807
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1811
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1812
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1816
Extreme coefficient. 1825
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1829
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1830
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1831
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1832
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1833
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1835
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1838
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1839
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1840
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1841
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1842
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1843


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

(2 × 2 × 2)z.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+1i=03 }.

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1886
Then 1887
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1888
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1892
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1896
Then 1898
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1899
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1907
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1908
Then 1909
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1910
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1920
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1921
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1922
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
=( (min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |)choose|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |)
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
= {ViEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1923
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 1928
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1929
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1930
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1931
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1932
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1933
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1941

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1944
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1945

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1951
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1962
Then, 1964
∗ ∗
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1965
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1966
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1967

∃!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 1972
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1973
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1975
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1976
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1978
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1979
Forms 1981
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1982
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1986
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1987
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1988
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1989
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1991
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1992
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1993
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1994
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1996
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 1997
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 1998
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2001
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2002
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2003
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2007
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2008
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2010
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2014
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2015
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2016
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2017
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2023
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2025
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2035
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2041
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2042
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2046
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2048
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2049
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2059
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2072
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2073
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2078
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2080
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2086


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2130
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2131
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2135
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2139
Then 2141

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

.
Proof. Let 2142
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2150
Then 2152
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2153

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2163
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

= (PERFECT MATCHING).
{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
where ∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) |
= min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2166
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 2171
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2172
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2173
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2175
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2184

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2187
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2188
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2189

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2192
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2193
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2194
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2205
Then, 2207

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

.
Proof. Let 2208
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2209

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2213
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2214
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2215
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2216
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2221
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2222
Forms 2224
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2225
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2229
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2230
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2231
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2232
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2234
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2235
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2236
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2237
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2239
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2240
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2241
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2242
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2245
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2247
SuperHyperPerfect; 2252
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2253
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2255
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2259
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2260
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2261
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2262
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2268
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2270
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2280
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2281
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2285
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2287
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2288
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2289
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2292
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2294
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2295
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2296
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2305
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2318
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2324
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2332


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2376
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2377
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2381
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2385
Then 2387
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2388
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2396
Then 2398
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2399

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2409
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2412
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 2417
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2418
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2419
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2420
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2421
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2430

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2433
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2434

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2438
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2439
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2440
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2451
Then, 2453
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2454
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2455

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2459
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2460
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2461
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2462
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2467
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2468
Forms 2470
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2471
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2475
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2476
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2477
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2478
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2480
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2481
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2482
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2483
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2485
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2486
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2487
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2488
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2491
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2493
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2497
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2498
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2500
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2504
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2505
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2506
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2507
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2513
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2515
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2525
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2531
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2532
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2536
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2538
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2539
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2549
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2562
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2568
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2576


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2620
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2621
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2625
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2629
Then 2631
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2632
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2640
Then 2642
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2643
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2653
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2656
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2661
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2662
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2665
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2674

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2677
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2678
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2679

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2682
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2683
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2695
Then, 2697
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2698
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2699

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2703
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2704
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2705
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2706
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2711
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2712
Forms 2714
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2715
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2719
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2720
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2721
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2722
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2724
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2725
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2726
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2727
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2729
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2730
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2731
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2732
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2735
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2737
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2738
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2739
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2740
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2742
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2743
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2746
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2747
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2748
SuperHyperConnected; 2750
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2751
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2752
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2754
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2759
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2761
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2762
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2771
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2775
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2776
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2778
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2779
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2783
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2784
SuperHyperConnected; 2786
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2787
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2788
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2789
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2790
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2797
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2798
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2810
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2811
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2812
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2813
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2814
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2815
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2816
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2817
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2820
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2821
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2822
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2823
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2825


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2889
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2890
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2894
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2898
Then 2900
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2901
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2904
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2909
Then 2911
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2912
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2922
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2925
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2930
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2931
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2934
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2935
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2943
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2946
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2947

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2951
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2952
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2964
Then, 2966
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2967
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2968

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2972
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2973
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2974
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2975
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2981
17 Background 2982
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2983
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2984
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 2985
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 2986
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 2987
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2988
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 2989
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 2990
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 2991
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 2992
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 2993
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2994
results based on initial background. 2995
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 2996
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 2997
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 2998
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2999
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3000
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3001
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3002
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3003
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3004
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3005
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3006
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3007
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3008
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3009
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3010
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3011
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3012
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3013
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3014
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3015
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3016
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3017
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3018
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3019
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3020
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3021
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3022
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3023
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3024
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3025
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3026
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3027
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3028
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3029
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3030
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3031
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3032
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3033
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3034
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3035
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3036
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3037
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3038
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3039
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3040
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3041
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3042
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3043
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3044
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3045
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3046
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3047
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3048
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3049
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3050
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3051
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3052
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3053
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3054
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3055
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3056
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3057
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3058
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3059
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3060
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3061
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3062
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3063
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3064
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3065
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3066
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3067
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3068
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3069
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3070
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3071
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [138] by Henry Garrett 3072
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3073
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3074
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [139] by Henry Garrett 3075
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3076
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3077
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [140] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3078
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3079
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3080
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [141] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3081
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3082
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [144] by 3083
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3084
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3085
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [145] by Henry 3086
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3087
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3088
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [148] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3089
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3090
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [151] by Henry 3091
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3092
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3093
in Ref. [152] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3094
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3095
Ref. [153] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3096
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [154] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3098
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3099
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [155] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3100
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3101
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3102
in Ref. [156] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3103
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3104
in Ref. [167] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3105
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3106
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [168] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3107
and [4–168], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3108
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3109
books at [169–265]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3110
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [266, 267]. 3111
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3112
proposed as book in Ref. [254] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3113
Scholar and has more than 4216 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3114
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3115
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3116
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3117
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3118
proposed as book in Ref. [255] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3119
Scholar and has more than 5214 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3120
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3121
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3122
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3123
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3124
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3125
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3126
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3127
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3128
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–168] 3129
alongside scientific research books at [169–265]. Two popular scientific research books 3130
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4216 and 5214 respectively, on neutrosophic 3131
science is on [266, 267]. 3132
References 3133
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3134
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3135
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3136
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3137
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3138
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3139
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3140
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3141
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3142
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3143
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3144
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3145
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3146
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3147
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3148
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3149
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3150
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3151
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3152
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3153
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3154
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3155
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3156
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3157
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3158
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3159
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3160
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3161
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3162
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3163
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3164
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3165
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3166
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3167
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3168
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3169
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3170
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3171
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3172
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3173
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3174
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3175
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3176
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3177
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3178
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3179
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3180
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3181
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3182
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3183
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3184
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3185
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3187
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3188
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3189
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3190
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3191
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3192
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3193
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3194
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3195
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3197
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3198
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3199
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3200
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3202
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3203
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3204
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3205
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3206
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3207
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3209
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3213
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3214
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3215
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3216
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3217
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3218
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3219
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3220
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3221
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3222
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3223
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3224
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3225
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3226
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3227
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3228
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3229
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3230
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3231
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3232
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3233
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3234
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3235
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3236
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3237
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806838). 3238
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3240
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3241
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3242
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3243
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3244
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3245
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3246
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On 3248
Super Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3249
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3250
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3251
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3254
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7796334). 3255
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3257
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3258
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3260
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3261
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3263
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3266
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3267
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3269
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3272
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3273
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3275
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3278
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3279
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3281
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3284
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3285
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3287
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3289
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3290
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3291
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3293
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3296
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3297
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3298
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3299
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3300
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3302
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3305
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3306
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3308
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3309
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3311
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3314
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3316
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3317
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3318
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3320
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3323
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3326
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3327
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3329
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3332
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3334
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3336
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3338
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3340
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3341
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3344
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3346
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3347
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3350
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3352
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3354
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3356
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3358
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3359
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3362
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3363
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3365
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3368
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3370
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3372
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3374
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3375
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3377
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3379
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3381
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3383
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3384
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3385
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3386
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3387
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3389
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3390
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3391
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3392
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3395
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3397
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3398
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3401
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3402
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3403
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3404
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3407
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3409
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3411
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3413
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3414
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3415
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3416
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3419
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3420
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3421
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3422
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3425
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3426
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3427
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3428
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3431
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3432
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3433
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3434
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3437
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3438
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3439
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3440
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3443
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3444
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3445
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3446
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3448
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3449
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3452
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3453
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3454
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3455
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3458
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3459
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3460
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3461
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3464
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3466
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3467
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3470
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3471
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3472
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3473
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3475
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3476
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3479
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3480
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3482
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3484
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3485
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3487
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3488
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3490
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3491
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3492
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3493
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3494
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3495
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3496
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3497
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3499
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3500
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3501
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3502
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3503
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3504
115. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3505
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3506
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3507
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3508
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3511
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3512
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3515
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3516
118. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3517
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3519
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3520
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3523
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3524
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3527
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3528
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3529
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3530
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3531
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3532
122. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3533
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3534
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3535
123. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3536
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3537
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3538
124. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3539
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3540
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3541
125. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3542
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3543
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3544
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3545
126. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3546
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3547
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3548
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3549
127. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3550
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3551
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3552
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3553
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3554
128. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3555
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3556
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3557
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3558
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3559
129. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3560
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3561
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3562
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3563
130. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3564
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3565
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3566
131. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3567
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3568
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3570
132. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3571
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3572
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3573
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3574
133. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3575
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3576
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3577
134. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3578
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3579
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3580
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3581
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3582
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3583
135. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3584
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3585
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3586
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3587
136. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3588
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3589
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3590
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3591
137. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3592
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3593
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3594
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3595
138. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3596
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3597
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3598
139. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3599
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3600
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3601
140. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3603
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3604
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3605
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3606
141. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3607
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3608
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3609
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3610
142. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3611
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3612
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3613
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3614
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3616
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3617
144. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3618
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3619
145. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3621
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3622
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3623
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3628
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3632
148. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3633
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3634
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3635
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3636
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3639
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3641
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3642
151. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3643
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3644
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3647
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3648
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3650
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3651
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3654
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3655
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3657
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3658
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3661
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3662
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3664
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3665
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3667
159. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3669
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3672
160. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3674
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3677
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3684
163. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3685
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3686
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3687
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3688
164. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3689
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3690
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3691
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3695
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3696
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3699
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3700
167. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3701
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3702
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3703
168. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3704
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3705
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3706
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3707
169. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3708
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7807782). 3709
170. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3710
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804449). 3711
171. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3712
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793875). 3713
172. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3714
173. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3716
174. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3718
175. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3720
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3721
176. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3722
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3723
177. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3724
178. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3726
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3727
179. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3728
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3729
180. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3730
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3731
181. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3732
182. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3734
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3735
183. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3736
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3737
184. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3738
185. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3740
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3741
186. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3742
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3743
187. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3744
188. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3746
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3747
189. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3748
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3749
190. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3750
191. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3752
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3753
192. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3754
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3755
193. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3756
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3757
194. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3758
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3759
195. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3760
196. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3762
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3763
197. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3764
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3765
198. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3766
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3767
199. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3768
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3769
200. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3770
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3771
201. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3772
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3773
202. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3774
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3775
203. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3776
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3777
204. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3778
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3779
205. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3780
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3781
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3782
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3783
207. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3784
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3785
208. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3786
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3787
209. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3788
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3789
210. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3790
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3791
211. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3792
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3793
212. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3794
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3795
213. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3796
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3797
214. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3798
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3799
215. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3800
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3801
216. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3802
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3803
217. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3804
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3805
218. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3806
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3807
219. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3808
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3809
220. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3810
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3811
221. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3812
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3813
222. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3814
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3815
223. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3816
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3817
224. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3818
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3819
225. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3820
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3821
226. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3822
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3823
227. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3824
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3825
228. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3826
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3827
229. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3828
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3829
230. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3830
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3831
231. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3832
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3833
232. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3834
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3835
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3836
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3837
234. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3838
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3839
235. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3840
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3841
236. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3842
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3843
237. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3844
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3845
238. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3846
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3847
239. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3848
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3849
240. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3850
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3851
241. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3852
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3853
242. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3854
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3855
243. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3856
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3857
244. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3858
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3859
245. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3860
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3861
246. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3862
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3863
247. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3864
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3865
248. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3866
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3867
249. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3868
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3869
250. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3870
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3871
251. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3872
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3873
252. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3874
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3875
253. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3876
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3877
254. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3878
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3879
255. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3880
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3881
256. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3882
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3883
257. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3884
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3885
258. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3886
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3887
259. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3888
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3889
260. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3890
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3891
261. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3892
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3893
262. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3894
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3895
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3896
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3897
264. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3898
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3899
265. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3900
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3901
266. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3902
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3903
267. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3904
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3905
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super EULA by Hyper Eulogy of Eulerian-Path-Cut in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super EULA by Hyper Eulogy of Eulerian-Path-Cut in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer's

Preprint · April 2023

431 PUBLICATIONS 10,803 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 2

Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7

In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9

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

Eulerian-Path-Cut pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 14

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 16

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

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 19

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut criteria holds 21

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

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 23

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and 24

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut). 25

Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 26

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 27

Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 28

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic 29

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and 30

cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 32

SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 33

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of 35

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 36

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 37

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 39

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 41

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut 42

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 43

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 44

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 45

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 46

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 47

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 48

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 49

Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 51

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 52

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic 53

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and 54

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 55

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 56

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 57

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 58

conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 59

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut; 60

and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 61

V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 62

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut, 63

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 64