New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369943811
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7819531
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
440 PUBLICATIONS 11,565 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project
Featured Articles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 11 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As 3
Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 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-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 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-Decomposition if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 14
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
a SuperHyperPath and it has
the all number of SuperHyperEdges;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 16
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 19
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 21
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 24
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 25
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition). 26
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 27
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 28
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 36
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 45
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 46
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 47
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 48
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 50
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 51
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 52
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 53
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 54
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 55
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 56
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 60
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 61
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 62
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 63
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 64
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 65
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 66
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 67
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 71
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive 72
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 73
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 74
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 79
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 80
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 83
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 84
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 85
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 89
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 90
cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 91
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 92
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 94
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 98
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 99
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 103
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 104
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and 105
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Two different types of 106
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 107
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 108
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 109
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 110
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 111
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 112
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 113
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 114
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 115
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 116
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 117
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 118
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 119
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 120
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 121
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 122
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 123
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 124
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 125
δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 126
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 127
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 128
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 129
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 130
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 131
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 132
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 133
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 134
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 135
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 136
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 137
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 138
version of a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 139
type-results to make a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition more understandable. For the 140
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, there’s a need to 141
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices 142
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 143
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 144
Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 145
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values 146
of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 148
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 149
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 150
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 151
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 152
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 153
SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be 154
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 155
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition until 156
the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then it’s officially called a 157
“SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 158
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition . There are some instances about the clarifications for 159
the main definition titled a “SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition ”. These two examples 160
get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways 161
of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition . For the sake of 162
having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” the 163
notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 165
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 166
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 167
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 168
Table holds. And a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 170
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 171
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 172
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 174
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 175
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic 177
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 178
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 179
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” 180
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the 181
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition amid the maximum value amid all 182
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition .] 183
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 184
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 185
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 186
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 187
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s only 188
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar 189
it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 190
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 191
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 192
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 193
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 194
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 195
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 196
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 197
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 198
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 199
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 200
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 201
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 202
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 203
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 204
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 205
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 206
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 207
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 208
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 209
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 210
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 211
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 212
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 213
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 214
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 215
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 216
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 217
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 218
either the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition or the strongest 219
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 220
longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, called SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and 221
the strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 222
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 223
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 224
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 225
of a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 226
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 227
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 228
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition theory, 229
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 230
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 231
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 232
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 233
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 234
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 235
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 236
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 237
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 238
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 239
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 240
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 241
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 242
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 243
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 244
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 245
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 246
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 247
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 248
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 249
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 250
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 251
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 252
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 253
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 254
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 255
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 256
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 257
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 258
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 259
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 260
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 261
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 262
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 263
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 264
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 265
formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 266
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 267
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 268
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 269
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 270
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 271
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 272
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 273
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 274
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 275
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 276
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 278
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 279
either the optimal SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition or the Neutrosophic 280
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 281
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 282
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 283
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 284
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 285
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 286
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 287
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 288
find the “ amount of SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or the 289
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 290
of SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 291
group of cells? 292
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 293
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 294
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 295
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 296
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” 297
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 298
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 299
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 300
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 301
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 302
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 303
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 304
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 305
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 306
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 307
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 308
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 309
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 310
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, are figured out in sections “ 311
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”. 312
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Eulerian-Path-Decomposition to make sense 313
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 314
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 315
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 316
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 317
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 318
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 319
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 320
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 321
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 322
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 323
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 324
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”, 325
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 326
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 327
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 328
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 329
presented in section, “ SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”. The keyword of this research 330
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 331
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 332
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 333
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 334
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 335
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 336
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 337
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 338
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 339
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 340
Research On the Redeemed Ways 341
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 342
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [173],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 343
Set](Ref. [173],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 344
(NSHG)](Ref. [173],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [173],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [173], 346
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 347
(NSHG)](Ref. [173],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 348
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [173],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 349
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [173],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 350
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [173]. 351
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 352
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 353
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [173],Definition 2.1,p.1). 354
Let X be a Eulerian-Path-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

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

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 355
+
]− 0, 1 [. 356
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [173],Definition 2.2,p.2). 357
Let X be a Eulerian-Path-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

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

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

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [173],Definition 358
2.5,p.2). 359
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 360
pair S = (V, E), where 361
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 362
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 363
1, 2, . . . , n); 364
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 365
V; 366
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 367
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 368
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 369
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 370
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 371
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 372
(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 . 373
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 375
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 376
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 377
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 378
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 379
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 380
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 381
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 382
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 383
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 384
(Ref. [173],Definition 2.7,p.3). 385
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 386
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 387
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 388
characterized as follow-up items. 389
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 390
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 391
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 392
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 393
HyperEdge; 394
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 395
SuperEdge; 396
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 397
SuperHyperEdge. 398
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 399
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 400
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [173], Definition 2.7, p.3). 401
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 402
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 403
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 404
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 405
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 406
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 407
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)). 408
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 409
pair S = (V, E), where 410
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 411
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 412
1, 2, . . . , n); 413
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 414
V; 415
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 416
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 417
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 418
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 419
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 420
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 421
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 423
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 424
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 426
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 427
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 428
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 429
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 430
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 431
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 432
(Ref. [173],Definition 2.7,p.3). 433
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 434
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 435
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 436
characterized as follow-up items. 437
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 438
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 439
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 440
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 441
HyperEdge; 442
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 443
SuperEdge; 444
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 445
SuperHyperEdge. 446
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 447
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 448
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 449
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 450
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 451
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 452
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 453
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 454
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 455
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 456
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 457
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 458
given SuperHyperEdges; 459
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 460
SuperHyperEdges; 461
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 462
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 463
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 464
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 465
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 466
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 467
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 468
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 469
common SuperVertex. 470
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 471
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 472
of following conditions hold: 473
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 480
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 481
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 482
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 483
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 484
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. 485
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 486
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 487
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 488
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 489
SuperHyperPath . 490
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 491
(Ref. [173],Definition 5.3,p.7). 492
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 493
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 494
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 495
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 496
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 497
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 498
(NSHE)). (Ref. [173],Definition 5.4,p.7). 499
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 500
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 501
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 502
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 503
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 504
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 505
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 506
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 508
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 509
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 511
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 512
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 513
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 514
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 515
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition). 516
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 518
either V 0 or E 0 is called 519
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the following expression 520
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 521
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the following 522
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 523
criteria holds 524
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 525
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the following expression 526
is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 527
0
∀V ∈ P : P is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the following 528
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 529
criteria holds 530
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 531
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 532
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 533
re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 534
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 536
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition). 537
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 540
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 544
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 545
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 546
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 547
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 548
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 549
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 550
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 551
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 555
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 556
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 559
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if 560
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 561
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 565
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 566
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 567
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 568
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 570
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 571
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 572
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 573
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 578
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 579
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 580
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 581
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 582
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; and the 583
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 584
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 585
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 592
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 594
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 595
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 600
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 601
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial 605
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 606
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 612
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 615
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 616
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 617
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 618
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 625
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; and the 628
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 629
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition). 630
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 631
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 632
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition such that either of the following expressions hold 633
for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 634
|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 635
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 636
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind 637
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition such that either of the following 638
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 639
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 640
|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. 641
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 642
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 643
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, there’s a 644
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 645
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 646
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 647
assign to the values. 648
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 649
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 650
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)
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 651
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 652
understandable. 653
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 654
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 655
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 656
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 657
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 658
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 659
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 660
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 661
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 662
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly understandable. 664
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, there’s a 665
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 666
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 667
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 668
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 669
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 670
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 671

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 672
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 673
Forms 674
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 675
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V 677
is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 678
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 679
probability of A. 680
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 681
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 683
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 684
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 685
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 686
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 687
criteria 688
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 689
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Any k-function Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 691
like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 692
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 693
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 694
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 695
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 697
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 698
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 699
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 700
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic number is called 702
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 703
Crossing criteria 704
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.

Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 705
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let m and n 706
propose special Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 707
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 708
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 709
Neutrosophic independently with probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set 710
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 711
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the
Neutrosophic number of crossings of H. The trivial bound noted above, when applied to
H, yields the inequality Z ≥ cr(H) ≥ Y − 3X. By linearity of Neutrosophic Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
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: 712
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
713
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 714
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a 715
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 716
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 717
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 718
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 719
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 720
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 721
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 722
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 723
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 724
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 725
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a 727
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 728
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 729
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 730
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 731
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 732
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 733
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
734
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 735
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 736
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 737
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 738
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 739
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 740
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 741
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 742
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 743
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 744
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 745
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a 746
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 747
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. 748
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 749
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 750
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 751
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 752
Proof. 753
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. A special 755
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 756
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph 758
in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 759
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 760
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 761
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 762
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 763
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 764
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 765
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 766
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 767
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: 768
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 769
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 770
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 771
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 772
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 773
stability number at most k. 774
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 775
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 777
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 778
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 779
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a 781
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 782
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a Neutrosophic 784
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 785
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
786
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 788
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 789
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 790
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and 792
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 793
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 794
when Xn = 0. 795
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 797
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 798
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 799
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 800
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. As in the proof of related 802
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 803
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 805
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 806
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 807
or 808
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 809
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The latter is 811
straightforward. 812
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 813
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 815
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 816
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 817
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 818
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 819
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 820
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 822
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 823
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 824
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a 826
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 827
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 828
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 829
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The latter is 831
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 833
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 834
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 835
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 836
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 837
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 838
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 839
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 840
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 841
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 842
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 843
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 844
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
845
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 848
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 849
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 850
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 851
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 852
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 853
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 854

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

855
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 858

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 }}.
= z3.
859

= {{E4 , E5 , E1 , E2 }}.
= z4.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |Vi ∈VN SHG | .


863

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

867

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
871

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

875

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
879

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



883

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
887

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
891

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
895

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
899

= {{E1 , E2 }}.
= z2.
= {{V2 , V1 , V3 }}.
= z3.
903

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z5.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
907

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z5.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
911

(16.3)

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }}.
= z6.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
915

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }}.
= z6.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
919

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
923

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

(16.3)
927

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
931

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z4.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
935
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 936
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 937
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other 938
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 939
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 940
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 941
amount of them. 942
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 943
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 944
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 945
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic 946
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 947
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 948
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, minus 949
all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 950
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 951
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 952
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 953
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 954
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 955
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition in 956
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 957
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 958
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 959
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with the least Neutrosophic 960
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 961
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 962
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 963
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the 964
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is 965
the cardinality of 966
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

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

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

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

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There
are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting
of the graph titled path and cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction
star as the examples-classes, are well-known classes in that setting and they could be
considered as the examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 967
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 968
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 969
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 970
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 971
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 972
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 973
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 974
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition decorates

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

Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 975
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 976
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 977
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 978
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 979
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 980
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
981
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 982
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 983
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 984
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 986
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition in 987
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 988
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 989
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic 990
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 991
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 992
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 993
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 994
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 995
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 996
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 997
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 998
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 999
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1000
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1001
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 1002
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition where 1003
the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1004
literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of 1005
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1006
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1007
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1008
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1009
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1010
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1011
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1012
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1013
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1014
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1015
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types 1016
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1017
Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic 1018
SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1019
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1020
embedded Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic 1021
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 1022
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic 1023
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1024
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 1025
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1026
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with the exclusion of 1027
the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1028
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with 1029
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1030
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. To sum them up, in 1031
a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1032
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1033
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1034
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 1035
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique 1036
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1037
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, minus all 1038
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1039
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition has two titles. a 1040
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1041
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1042
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with 1043
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1044
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1045
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1046
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decompositions for all Neutrosophic 1047
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1048
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1049
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, again and more in the operations of 1050
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decompositions acted on the all possible 1051
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1052
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1053
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1054
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decompositions. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1055
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1056
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1057
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is 1058
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1059
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1060
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1061
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1062
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1063
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1064
= max zNeutrosophic Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1065

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1066


1067
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1068

1069

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1070
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1071
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1072
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1073
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the 1074
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” since “Neutrosophic 1075
Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” happens “Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” in a 1076
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1077
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic 1078
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1079
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1080
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1081
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition”, 1082
and “Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” are up. 1083
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1084
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1085
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition and the new terms 1086
are up. 1087

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1088
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1089
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1090
And with go back to initial structure, 1091


1092
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1093

1094

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1095
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1096
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1097
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1098
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1099
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1100
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1101
are coming up. 1102
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1103
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1104
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic

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

R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1105
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1106
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1107
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1108
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition and it’s an 1109
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1110
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1111
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1112
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1113
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1114
“Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” 1115
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1116
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, 1117
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1118
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1119
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1120
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1122
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1123
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1124
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1125
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1126
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1127
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1128
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1130
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1131
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1132
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1134
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1135
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1136
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1137
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1138
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1139
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1140
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1141
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1142
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1143
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1145
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1146
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1148
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1149
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1150
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1151
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, VESHE is up. The obvious 1152
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, 1153
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1156
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1157
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1158
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1159
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1160
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1161
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1162
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1163
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1165
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1166
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1167
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1169
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither empty 1170
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1171
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1172
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The 1173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1174
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1175
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1176
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1177

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1178
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1179
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1182
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1183
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1184
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 1185
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1186
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1187
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1188

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1190
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1191
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1192
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1193

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1194
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1195

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1197
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1199
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1200
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition and it’s an 1201
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1202
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1205
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1206
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1208

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition , 1209

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1210
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, not: 1211

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1212

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1213
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1214
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1215
“Neutrosophic Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ” 1216
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1217
Neutrosophic ,
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 1218
is only and only 1219

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1220
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1221
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1222
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1223
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1224
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1225
Then 1226

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |Ei ∈EN SHG | .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
Proof. Let 1227
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1228
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1229
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1230
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 1231
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1232
The latter is straightforward. 1233
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1234
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1235
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1236
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1237
Then 1238

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1239
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
1240
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1241
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1242

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1246
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1247
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1248
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1250
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Then 1251

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1252
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1253
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1254
There’s a new way to redefine as 1255

Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1259
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1260
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1261
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1262
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1263
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1265
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1266

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1267
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
1268
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1269
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1270

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1273
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1274
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition could be applied. There 1275
are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1276
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1277
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1278
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1279
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1280
solution 1281
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1283
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1284
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1285
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1286
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1287
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1288
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1289
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1290

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1291
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
1292
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 1294

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1297
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1298
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition could be applied. There 1299
are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1300
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1302
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1303
solution 1305
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1307
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1308
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1309
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1310
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1311
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1312
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1313
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1314
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1315

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1316
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
1317
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1319

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1322
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1323
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition could be applied. The unique embedded 1324
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition proposes some longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 1325
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1326
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1328
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1329
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1330
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1331
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1333
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1334
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 1335
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and the Neutrosophic 1336
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1337
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is 1338
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1339
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1340
N eutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Decomposition
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−P ath−Decomposition. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1341
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1342
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1343
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1344
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and 1345
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition coincide. 1346
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1348
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a 1349
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1352
strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1353
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1355
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1356
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is its SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and reversely. 1357
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1358
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1359
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. 1360
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is its SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 1361
and reversely. 1362
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1363
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1364
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1365
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1366
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1367
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1371
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1372
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1374
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1375
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined. 1376
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1377
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1378
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1382
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1383
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1385
is 1386
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1387
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1388
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1389
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1390
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1391
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1392
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1393
∅ is 1394
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1395
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1396
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1397
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1398
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1399
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1400
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1401
independent SuperHyperSet is 1402
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1403
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1404
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1405
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1406
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1407
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1408
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1409
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1410
a maximal 1411
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1412
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1413
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1414
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1415
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1416
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1417
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1418
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1419
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1420
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1421
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1422
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1423
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1424
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1425
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1426
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1427
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1429
number of 1430
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1431
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1432
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1433
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1434
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1435
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1436
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1437
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1438
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1440
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1441
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1442
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1443
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1444
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1445
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1446
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1447
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1450
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1451
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1452
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1453
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1457
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1458
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1459
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1462
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1463
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1464
is a 1465
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1469
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1470
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1471
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1474
number of 1475
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1479
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1480
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1481
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1482
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1483
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1484
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1486
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1487
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1491
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1492
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1493
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1494
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1495
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1496
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1497
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1498
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1502
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1504
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1506
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1507
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1511
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1512
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1513
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1515
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1517
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1518
of a dual 1519
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1523
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1524
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1525
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1527
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1528
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1529
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1535
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1536
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1537
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1538
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1539
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1540
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1541
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then 1542
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1543
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1544
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1545
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1546
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then 1547
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition set; 1548
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1549
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1550
Then 1551
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1552
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1553
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1554
which is connected. Then 1555
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1556
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1557
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1558
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1559
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1561
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1562
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1563
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1564
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1565
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1566
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1568
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1569
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1570
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1571
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1572
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1573
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1574
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1576
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1577
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1578
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1579
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1581
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1582
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1584
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1585
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1586
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1588
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1589
(ii) Γ = 1; 1590
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1591
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1592
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1594
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1595
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1596
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1597
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1598
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1599
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1600
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1601
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1602
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1604
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1605
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1606
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1608
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1609
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1611

bnc ; 1612
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1613
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1615
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1616
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1617
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF; 1618
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1619
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1620
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1621
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1622
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1623
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1624
SuperHyperSet. Then 1625
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1626
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF; 1627
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1628
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1629
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1630
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1632
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1633
SuperHyperSet. Then 1634
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1635
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1636
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1637

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1638
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1639
Then following statements hold; 1642
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1643
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is an 1644
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1645
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1646
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1647
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1648
Then following statements hold; 1650
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1651
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is an 1652
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1653
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1654
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1655
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1656
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1657
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1658
statements hold; 1659
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1660
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1661
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1662
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1664
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1666
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1667
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1668
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1669
statements hold; 1670
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1671
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1673
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1675
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1677
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1678
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1680
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1681
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1682
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1684
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1686
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1689
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1691
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1692
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1693
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1695
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1697
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1698
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1700
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1702
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1703
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1704
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1706
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1708
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1711
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1713
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1714
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1715
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1717
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1719
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1722
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1723
Neutrosophic Recognition 1724
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1725
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1726
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1727
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1728
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1729
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1730
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1731
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1732
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1733
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1734
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1735
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1736
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1737
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1738
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1739
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1740
happened and what’s done. 1741
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1763
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1764
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1765
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1766
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1767
Neutrosophic featured. 1768
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1769
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1770
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1771
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1772
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1773
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1775
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1776
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1777
The SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1778
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled 1779
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1780
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1781
recognitions? 1782
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1783
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition? 1784
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1785
compute them? 1786
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1787
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition? 1788
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1789
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1790
they’re based on SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, are there else? 1791
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1792
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1793
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1794
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1795
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1796
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1797
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1798
highlighted. 1799
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1800
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1801
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1802
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1803
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the 1804
new SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, finds the 1805
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 1806
SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 1807
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 1808
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1809
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, the 1810
new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results 1811
are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the 1812
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. The clarifications, instances and 1813
literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1814
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1815
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 1816
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 1817
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 1818
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1819
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1820
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1821
called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1822
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1823
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1824
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1825
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1826
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1827
Forms 1828
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1829
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1833
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1834
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1835
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1836
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1837
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1838
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1839
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1840
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1841
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1842
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1843
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1844
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1845
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1846
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1849
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1851
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1852
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1853
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1854
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1856
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1857
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1860
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1861
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1864
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1865
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1866
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1867
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1868
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1869
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1870
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1871
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1872
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1873
Extreme coefficient; 1874
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1875
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1876
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1878
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1879
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1880
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1884
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1885
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1886
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1891
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1893
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1894
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1898
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1901
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1902
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1907
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1908
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1910
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1912
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1921
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1922
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1926
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1927
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1928
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1929
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1930
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1931
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1932
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1933
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1936
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1937
SuperHyperDuality. 1942


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2005
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2006
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 2007
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 2011
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2015
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2016
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2017
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 2018
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2029
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2030
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2040
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2043
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 2048
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2049
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2050
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2052
solution 2055
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2062

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2065
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2066

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2072
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2077
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2085
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2088
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2089
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2090

∃!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 2095
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2096
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2103
Forms 2105
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2106
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2110
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2111
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2112
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2113
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2115
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2116
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2117
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2118
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2120
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2121
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2122
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2123
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2126
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2127
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2128
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2133
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2134
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2136
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2141
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2142
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2143
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2144
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2145
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2150
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2155
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2156
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2157
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2161
coefficient; 2162
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2163
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2166
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2167
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2170
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2178
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2179
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2187
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2189
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2198
coefficient. 2199
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2203
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2204
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2205
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2206
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2207
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2208
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2209
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2210
SuperHyperJoin. 2211
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2285
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2289
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2293

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

.
Proof. Let 2296
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2307
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2308

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2318
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2321
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 2326
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2327
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2328
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2330
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2331
solution 2333
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2340

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2343
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2344

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2348
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2349
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2350
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2355
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2363

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

.
Proof. Let 2366
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2367

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2371
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2372
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2373
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2374
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2381
Forms 2383
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2384
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2388
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2389
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2390
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2391
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2393
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2394
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2395
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2396
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2398
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2399
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2400
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2401
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2404
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2406
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2409
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2411
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2412
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2419
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2420
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2421
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2422
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2428
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2430
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2431
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2439
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2441
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2446
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2448
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2449
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2456
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2457
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2465
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2467
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2476
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2481
SuperHyperPerfect. 2489
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2563
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2567
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2571
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2574
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2585
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2586

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2596
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2599
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 2604
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2605
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2606
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2607
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2608
solution 2611
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2618

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2621
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2622

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2626
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2627
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2628
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2633
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2641
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

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

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2645

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2649
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2650
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2651
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2652
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2659
Forms 2661
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2662
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2666
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2667
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2668
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2669
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2671
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2672
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2673
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2674
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2676
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2677
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2678
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2679
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2682
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2684
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2689
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2690
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2697
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2698
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2699
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2706
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2708
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2717
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2719
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2726
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2727
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2734
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2735
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2743
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2745
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2754
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2759
SuperHyperTotal. 2767
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= |(|V | − 1)z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2841
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2845
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2849
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2852
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2863
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2864
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2874
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2877
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2882
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2883
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2886
solution 2889
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2896

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2899
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2900

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2904
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2905
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2911
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2919
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2922
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2923

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2927
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2928
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2929
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2930
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2937
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2938
Forms 2939
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2940
SuperHyperConnected). 2941
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2945
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2946
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2947
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2948
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2949
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2950
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2952
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2953
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2954
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2955
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2956
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2957
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2959
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2960
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2961
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2962
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2965
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2967
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2968
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2969
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2970
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2972
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2973
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2976
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2977
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2980
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2981
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2982
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2983
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2984
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2986
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2987
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2988
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2989
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2990
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2991
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2992
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2993
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2994
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2997
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3000
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3001
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3002
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3005
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3006
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3007
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3009
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3010
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3013
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3014
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3017
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3018
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3021
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3024
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3027
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3029
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3032
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3035
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3038
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3039
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3043
SuperHyperConnected. 3051
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E2 }.

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V2 , V3 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E2 , E3 , E4 }.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3125
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3129
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3133
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3136
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3147
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3148
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3158
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3161
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3166
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3167
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3170
solution 3173
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3180
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3183
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3188
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3189
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3195
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3203
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3206
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3208

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3211
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3212
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3213
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3214
17 Background 3222
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3223
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3224
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3225
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3226
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3227
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3228
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3229
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3230
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3231
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3232
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3233
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3234
results based on initial background. 3235
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3236
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3237
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3238
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3239
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3240
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3241
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3242
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3243
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3244
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3245
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3246
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3247
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3248
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3249
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3250
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3251
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3252
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3253
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3254
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3255
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3256
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3257
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3258
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3259
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3260
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3261
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3262
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3263
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3264
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3265
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3266
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3267
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3268
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3269
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3270
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3271
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3272
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3273
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3274
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3275
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3276
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3277
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3278
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3279
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3280
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3281
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3282
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3283
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3284
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3285
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3286
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3287
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3288
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3289
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3290
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3291
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3292
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3293
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3294
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3295
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3296
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3297
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3298
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3299
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3300
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3301
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3302
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3303
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3304
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3305
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3306
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3307
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3308
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3309
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3310
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3311
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [143] by Henry Garrett 3312
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3313
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3314
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [144] by Henry Garrett 3315
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3316
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3317
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3318
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3319
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3320
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [146] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3321
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3322
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [149] by 3323
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3324
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3325
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [150] by Henry 3326
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3327
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3328
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [153] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3329
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3330
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [156] by Henry 3331
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3332
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3333
in Ref. [157] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3334
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3335
Ref. [158] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3336
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [159] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3338
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3339
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [160] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3340
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3341
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3342
in Ref. [161] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3343
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3344
in Ref. [172] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3345
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3346
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [173] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3347
and [4–173], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3348
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3349
books at [174–273]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3350
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [274, 275]. 3351
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3352
proposed as book in Ref. [262] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3353
Scholar and has more than 4216 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3354
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3355
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3356
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3357
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3358
proposed as book in Ref. [263] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3359
Scholar and has more than 5214 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3360
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3361
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3362
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3363
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3364
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3365
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3366
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3367
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3368
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–173] 3369
alongside scientific research books at [174–273]. Two popular scientific research books 3370
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4216 and 5214 respectively, on neutrosophic 3371
science is on [274, 275]. 3372
References 3373
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3374
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3375
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3376
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3377
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3378
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3379
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3380
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3381
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3382
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3383
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3384
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3385
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3386
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3387
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3388
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3389
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3390
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3391
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3392
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3393
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3394
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3395
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3396
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3397
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3398
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3399
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3400
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3401
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3402
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3403
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3404
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3405
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3406
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3407
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3408
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3409
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3410
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3411
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3412
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3413
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3414
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3415
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3416
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3417
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3418
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3419
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3420
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3421
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3422
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3423
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3424
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3425
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3426
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3427
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3428
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3429
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3430
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3431
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3432
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3433
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3434
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3435
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3436
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3437
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3438
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3439
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3440
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3442
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3443
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3444
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3445
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3446
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3447
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3449
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3453
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3454
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3455
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3456
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3457
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3458
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3459
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3460
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3461
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3462
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3463
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3464
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3465
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3466
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3467
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3468
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3469
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3470
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3471
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3472
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3473
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3474
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3475
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3477
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3478
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3480
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3481
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3482
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3483
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809219). 3484
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3486
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809328). 3487
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3489
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3490
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3491
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3492
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3495
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3496
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3497
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3498
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3499
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3500
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3501
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On 3503
Super Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3504
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3505
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3506
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3509
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7796334). 3510
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3512
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3513
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3515
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3516
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3518
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3521
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3522
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3524
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3527
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3528
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3530
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3533
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3536
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3539
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3542
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3544
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3545
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3546
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3548
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3551
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3552
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3553
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3554
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3555
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3557
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3560
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3561
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3563
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3564
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3569
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3571
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3572
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3573
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3575
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3578
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3581
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3582
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3587
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3589
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3591
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3593
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3595
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3596
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3599
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3601
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3605
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3607
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3609
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3611
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3613
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3614
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3617
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3618
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3620
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3623
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3625
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3627
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3629
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3630
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3632
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3634
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3636
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3638
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3639
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3640
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3641
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3642
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3644
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3645
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3646
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3650
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3652
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3653
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3656
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3657
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3658
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3659
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3662
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3664
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3666
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3668
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3669
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3670
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3671
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3674
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3675
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3676
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3677
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3680
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3681
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3682
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3683
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3686
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3687
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3688
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3689
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3692
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3693
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3694
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3695
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3698
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3699
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3700
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3701
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3703
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3704
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3707
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3708
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3709
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3710
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3713
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3714
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3715
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3716
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3719
107. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3721
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3722
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3725
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3726
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3727
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3728
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3730
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3731
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3734
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3735
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3737
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3739
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3740
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3742
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3743
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3745
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3746
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3747
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3748
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3749
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3750
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3751
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3752
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3754
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3755
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3756
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3757
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3758
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3759
120. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3760
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3761
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3762
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3763
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3766
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3767
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3770
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3771
123. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3772
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3774
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3775
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3778
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3779
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3782
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3783
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3784
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3785
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3786
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3787
127. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3788
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3789
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3790
128. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3791
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3792
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3793
129. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3794
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3795
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3796
130. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3797
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3798
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3799
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3800
131. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3801
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3802
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3803
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3804
132. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3805
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3806
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3807
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3808
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3809
133. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3810
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3811
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3812
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3813
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3814
134. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3815
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3816
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3817
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3818
135. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3819
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3820
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3821
136. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3822
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3823
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3825
137. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3826
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3827
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3828
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3829
138. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3830
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3831
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3832
139. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3833
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3834
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3835
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3836
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3837
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3838
140. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3839
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3840
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3841
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3842
141. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3843
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3844
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3845
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3846
142. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3847
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3848
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3849
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3850
143. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3851
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3852
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3853
144. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3854
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3855
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3856
145. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3858
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3859
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3860
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3861
146. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3862
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3863
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3864
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3865
147. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3866
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3867
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3868
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3869
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3871
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3872
149. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3873
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3874
150. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3876
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3877
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3878
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3883
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3887
153. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3888
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3889
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3890
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3891
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3894
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3896
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3897
156. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3898
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3899
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3902
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3903
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3905
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3906
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3909
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3910
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3912
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3913
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3916
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3917
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3919
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3920
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3922
164. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3924
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3927
165. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3929
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3932
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3939
168. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3940
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3941
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3942
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3943
169. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3944
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3945
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3946
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3947
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3950
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3951
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3954
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3955
172. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3956
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3957
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3958
173. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3959
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3960
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3961
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3962
174. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3963
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3964
175. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3965
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812142). 3966
176. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In 3967
SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3968
177. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3969
178. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3971
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804449). 3972
179. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3973
180. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3975
181. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3977
182. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3979
183. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3981
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3982
184. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3983
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3984
185. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3985
186. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3987
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3988
187. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3989
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3990
188. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3991
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3992
189. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3993
190. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3995
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3996
191. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3997
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3998
192. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3999
193. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4001
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4002
194. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4003
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4004
195. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4005
196. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4007
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4008
197. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4009
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4010
198. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4011
199. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4013
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4014
200. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4015
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4016
201. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4017
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4018
202. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4019
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4020
203. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4021
204. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4023
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4024
205. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4025
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4026
206. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4027
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4028
207. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4029
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4030
208. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4031
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4032
209. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4033
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4034
210. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4035
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4036
211. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4037
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4038
212. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4039
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4040
213. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4041
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4042
214. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4043
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4044
215. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4045
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4046
216. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4047
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4048
217. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4049
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4050
218. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4051
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4052
219. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4053
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4054
220. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4055
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4056
221. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4057
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4058
222. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4059
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4060
223. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4061
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4062
224. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4063
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4064
225. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4065
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4066
226. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4067
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4068
227. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4069
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4070
228. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4071
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4072
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4073
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4074
230. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4075
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4076
231. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4077
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4078
232. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4079
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4080
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4081
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4082
234. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4083
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4084
235. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4085
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4086
236. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4087
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4088
237. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4089
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4090
238. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4091
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4092
239. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4093
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4094
240. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4095
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4096
241. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4097
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4098
242. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4099
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4100
243. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4101
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4102
244. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4103
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4104
245. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4105
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4106
246. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4107
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4108
247. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4109
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4110
248. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4111
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4112
249. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4113
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4114
250. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4115
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4116
251. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4117
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4118
252. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4119
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4120
253. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4121
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4122
254. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4123
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4124
255. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4125
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4126
256. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4127
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4128
257. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4129
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4130
258. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4131
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4132
259. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4133
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4134
260. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4135
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4136
261. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4137
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4138
262. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4139
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4140
263. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4141
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4142
264. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4143
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4144
265. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4145
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4146
266. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4147
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4148
267. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4149
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4150
268. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4151
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4152
269. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4153
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4154
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4155
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4156
271. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4157
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4158
272. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4159
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4160
273. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4161
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4162
274. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4163
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4164
275. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4165
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4166
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · April 2023

440 PUBLICATIONS 11,565 CITATIONS

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

Featured Articles View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10

S is a Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 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-Decomposition if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 21

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

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 24

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 25

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition). 26

Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 27

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 28

Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 30

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 31

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 36

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 38

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 39

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 41

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 45

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 46

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 47

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 48

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 49

N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 50

Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 52

conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 53

corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 55

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 56

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 57

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 58

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 59

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 60

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 61

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 62