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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369943967
New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Eulerian-Path-

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7819579
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
441 PUBLICATIONS 11,674 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
On Combinatorics 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 On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2
Of Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition 3
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 88
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
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 101
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 102
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 “Extreme 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 “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 255
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 Extreme 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
Extreme 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 an 277
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 278
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 279
either the optimal SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition or the Extreme 280
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general 281
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 282
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 283
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 “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” on 297
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 298
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 299
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 Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, are figured out in sections “ 311
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” and “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”. In 312
the sense of tackling on getting results and in Eulerian-Path-Decomposition to make sense about 313
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back 317
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 Extreme 319
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 320
Extreme 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
“Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 326
“Results on Extreme 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 Extreme 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. [174],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 343
Set](Ref. [174],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 344
(NSHG)](Ref. [174],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [174],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [174], 346
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 347
(NSHG)](Ref. [174],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 348
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [174],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 349
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [174],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 350
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [174]. 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. [174],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. [174],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. [174],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. [174],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. [174], 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. [174],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. [174],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. [174],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
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 539
(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
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 590
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 591
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
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 610
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 611
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 612
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 613
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
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 623
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 624
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 625
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 626
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 627
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 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 672
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 673
Forms 674
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 675
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 676
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 677
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 678
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 679
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 680
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 682
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 683
s-independent criteria 684
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 685
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 686
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 687
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Any k-function Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 689
like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 690
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition like E is called Extreme Variable. 691
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 692
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 693
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 695
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 696
Expectation criteria 697
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 698
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. an Extreme number is called 700
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 701
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 702
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let m and n propose special 703
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 704
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 705
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 706
independently with probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 707
H := G[S]. 708
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 709
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
710
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 711
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 712
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 713
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 714
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 715
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 716
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 717
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 718
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 719
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 720
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 721
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 723
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 724
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 725
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 726
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 727
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 728

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 729
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
730
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 731
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 732
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 733
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 734
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 735
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 736
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 737
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 738
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 739
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 740
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 741
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a 742
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 743
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. 744
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 745
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 746
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 747
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 748
Proof. 749
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 750
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. A special 751
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 752
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is 754
up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 755
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 756
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 757
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 758
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 759
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 760
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 761
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 762
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: 763
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 764
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 765
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 766
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 767
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 768
number at most k. 769
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 770
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 772
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 773
Variance criteria 774
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let X be an 776
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 777
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let 779
t be a positive real number. Then 780
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ 2
= .
t t2
781
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be an 783
Extreme Variable in a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 784
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 785
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 787
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 788
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 789
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 791
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 792
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 793
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. As in the proof of related Theorem, 795
the result is straightforward. 796
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 798
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 799
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 800
or 801
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 802
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 804
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 805
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 807
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 808
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 809
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 810
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 811
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 812
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Extreme 814
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 815
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 816
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a 818
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 819
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 820
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 821
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 823
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 824
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 825
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 826
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 827
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 828
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 829
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 830
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 831
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 832
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 833
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 834
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.3)
835
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 838
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 839
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 840
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 841
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 842
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 843
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 844

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
= z3.
845

straightforward. 848

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 }}.
= z3.
849

= {{E4 , E5 , E1 , E2 }}.
= z4.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |Vi ∈VN SHG | .
853




= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
857

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
861


= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
865

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



869

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
873

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

877

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
881

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

885

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
889

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



893

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z5.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
897


= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z5.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
901

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }}.
= z6.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
905




= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }}.
= z6.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
909

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
913


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

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




= {{E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z4.
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
925
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 926
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 927
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 928
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 929
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 930
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 931
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 932
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 933
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 934
any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 935
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 936
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 937
an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 938
of them but not all of them. 939
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is 940
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 941
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 942
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 943
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 944
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 945
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 946
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 947
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition has, the least Extreme cardinality,
the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with the least Extreme cardinality, 948
the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 949
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 950
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 951
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the 952
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is the 953
cardinality of 954
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

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

propose property such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme
SuperHyperVertices but the maximum Extreme cardinality indicates that these

Extreme type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the Extreme lower bound in the term of
Extreme sharpness. In other words, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-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 955
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 956
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 957
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 958
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 959
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 960
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 961
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 962
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition decorates the

Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this
Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the
maximum Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are
spotlight. The lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum Extreme groups of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections inside each of
SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but
regarding the connectedness of the used Extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its
Extreme properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one
Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Extreme connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex has no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme

R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make
a title in the Extreme background of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The Extreme
SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no Extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices make the Extreme version of Extreme SuperHyperEdge.
Thus in the Extreme setting of non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at
least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple”
is used as Extreme adjective for the initial Extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s
no Extreme appearance of the loop Extreme version of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge
and this Extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Extreme adjective “loop”
on the basic Extreme framework engages one Extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this Extreme setting. With these Extreme bases, on an Extreme
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least
an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition has the Extreme
cardinality at least an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition
since either the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel
thus it never happens since there’s no Extreme usage of this Extreme framework and
even more there’s no Extreme connection inside or the Extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t
obvious and as its consequences, there’s an Extreme contradiction with the term
“Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” since the maximum Extreme cardinality never
happens for this Extreme style of the Extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s
no Extreme connection inside as mentioned in first Extreme case in the forms of
drawback for this selected Extreme SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Extreme case implies having the Extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
Extreme style on the every Extreme elements of this Extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that some Extreme amount of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle Extreme style. The Extreme cardinality of the
v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Extreme SuperHyperSet

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 963
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 964
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 965
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 966
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

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

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

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 967
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
968
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 969
is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 970
Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme 971
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 972
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 973
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition in some cases but the 974
maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 975
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 976
contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 977
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 978
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 979
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 980
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 981
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 982
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 983
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 984
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 985
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 986
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 987
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 988
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 989
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of 990
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 991
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 992
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 993
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 994
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 995
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 996
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The interior types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 997
are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 998
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and 999
more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any 1000
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1001
Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme 1002
SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme 1003
SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme 1004
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since 1005
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1006
relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 1007
inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1008
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1009
implying the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 1010
with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme 1011
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with the 1012
inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 1013
Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1014
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1015
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1016
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition minus all 1017
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1018
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1019
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, 1020
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1021
The main definition of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition has two titles. an 1022
Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1023
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1024
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with that quasi-maximum 1025
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1026
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1027
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1028
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decompositions for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1029
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ends 1030
up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, 1031
again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme 1032
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decompositions acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme 1033
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 1034
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1035
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decompositions. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1036
GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and 1037
an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1038
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is 1039
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1040
GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1041
technical definition for the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1042
GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1043
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1044
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1045
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1046

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1047


1048
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1049

1050

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1051
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1052
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1053
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1054
Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1055
Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” since “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” happens 1056
“Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1057
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1058
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1059
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1060
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1061
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition”, and “Extreme 1062
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” are up. 1063
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1064
GExtreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1065
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition and the new terms are 1066
up. 1067

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1068
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1069
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1070
And with go back to initial structure, 1071


1072
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1073

1074

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1075
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition if for 1076
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1077
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1078
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1079
them. 1080
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1081
are coming up. 1082
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1083
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1084
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme

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

R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1085
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1086
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1087
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1088
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1089
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

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

Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1090
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1091
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1092
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1093
“Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition” 1094
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1095
Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, 1096
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1097
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1098
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1099
quasi-R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 1100
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 1101
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1102
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1103
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1104
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1105
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1106
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1107
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1108
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition with the least 1109
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1110
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1111
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1112
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1113
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme 1114
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1115
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1116
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1117
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1118
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1119
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1120
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such 1121
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1122
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1123
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1124
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1125
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1126
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1127
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1128
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, VESHE 1129
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1130
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 1131
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1132
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1133
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1134
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1135
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1136
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1137
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1138
R-Eulerian-Path-Decomposition only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1139
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1140
there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1141
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1142
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1143
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1144
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither empty 1145
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1146
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1147
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The Extreme SuperHyperSet 1148
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1149
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. The 1150
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1151

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1152
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1153
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1155
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1156
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1157
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1158
non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1159
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is an Extreme 1160
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1161
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1162

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1163
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1164
Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1165
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1166

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1167
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1168
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1169

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1170
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1171
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1172
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 1173
and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1174
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1176
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1177
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1178
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1179

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition , 1180

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1181
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition, not: 1182

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1183

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1184
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1185
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1186
“Extreme Eulerian-Path-Decomposition ” 1187
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1188
Extreme ,
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition 1189
is only and only 1190

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1191
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1192
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1193
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1194
SuperHyperClasses. 1195
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1196

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |Ei ∈EN SHG | .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
Proof. Let 1197
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1198
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1199
There’s a new way to redefine as 1200
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 1201
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1202
The latter is straightforward. 1203
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1204
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1205
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1206
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1207
Then 1208

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
Proof. Let 1209
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1210
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1211

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1216
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1217
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1218
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.7)
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1219

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1220
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1221
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1222
a new way to redefine as 1223

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

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1227
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1228
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1229
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1230
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1231
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1232
Then 1233

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1234
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
1235
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1236

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1240
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1241
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition could be applied. There 1242
are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1243
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1244
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition taken from a connected Extreme 1245
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1246
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1247
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1249
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1250
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1251
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1252
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1253
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1254
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1255
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1256

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1257
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
1258
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1260

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1263
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1264
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition could be applied. There 1265
are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1266
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1268
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1269
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1272
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1273
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1274
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1275
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1276
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1277
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1279
Then, 1280

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1281
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
1282
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1284

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1287
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1288
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition could be applied. The unique embedded 1289
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition proposes some longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 1290
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1291
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1292
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1293
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1294
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1295
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1296
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1297
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1298
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 1299
and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1300
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is 1301
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1302
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1303
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − P ath − Decomposition
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−P ath−Decomposition. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1304
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1305
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1306
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1307
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and 1308
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition coincide. 1309
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an 1311
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1312
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1314
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1315
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1316
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is 1317
its SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and reversely. 1318
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, 1319
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1320
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 1321
is its SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and reversely. 1322
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1323
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1324
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1325
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1326
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1327
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1330
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1331
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1333
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1334
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined. 1335
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1336
its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1337
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1340
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1341
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1343
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1344
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1345
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1346
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1347
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1348
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1349
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1350
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1351
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1352
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1353
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1354
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1355
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1356
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1357
independent SuperHyperSet is 1358
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1359
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1360
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1361
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1362
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1363
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1364
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1365
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1366
a maximal 1367
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1368
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1369
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1370
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1371
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1372
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1373
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1374
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1375
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1376
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1377
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1378
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1379
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1380
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1381
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1382
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1383
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1385
number of 1386
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1387
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1388
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1389
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1390
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1391
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1392
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1393
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1394
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1396
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1397
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1398
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1399
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1400
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1401
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1402
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1403
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1406
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1407
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1408
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1409
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1413
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1414
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1415
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1418
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1419
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1420
is a 1421
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1425
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1426
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1427
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1430
number of 1431
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1435
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1436
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1437
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1438
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1439
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1440
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1442
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1443
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1447
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1448
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1449
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1450
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1451
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1452
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1453
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1454
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1458
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1460
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1461
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1462
setting of dual 1463
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1467
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1468
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1469
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1471
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1473
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1474
dual 1475
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1479
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1480
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1481
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1483
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1484
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1485
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. 1491
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1492
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1493
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1494
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1495
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1496
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1497
such that 1498
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1499
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1500
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1501
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then 1502
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition set; 1503
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1504
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1505
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1506
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1507
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1508
connected. Then 1509
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1510
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1511
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1512
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1513
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1515
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1516
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1517
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1518
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1519
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1520
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1522
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1523
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1524
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1525
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1526
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1527
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1528
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1530
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1531
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1532
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1533
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then 1535
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1536
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1538
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1539
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1540
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1542
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1543
(ii) Γ = 1; 1544
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1545
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1546
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1548
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1549
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1550
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1551
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1552
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1553
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1554
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1555
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1558
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1559
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1560
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1562
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1563
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1565

bnc ; 1566
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1567
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1569
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1570
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1571
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF; 1572
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1573
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1574
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1575
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1576
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1577
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1578
SuperHyperSet. Then 1579
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1580
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF; 1581
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1582

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1583
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1584
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1586
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1587
SuperHyperSet. Then 1588
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1589
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1590
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1591

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1592
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1593
following statements hold; 1596
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1597
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is an 1598
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1599
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1600
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1601
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1602
following statements hold; 1604
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1605
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is an 1606
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1607
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1608
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1609
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1610
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1611
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1612
hold; 1613
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1614
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1615
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1616
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1618
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1620
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1621
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1622
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1623
hold; 1624
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1625
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1627
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1629
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1631
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1632
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1634
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1635
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1636
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1638
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1640
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1643
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1645
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1646
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1647
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1649
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1651
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition; 1652
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1654
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1656
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1657
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1658
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1660
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1662
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1665
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1667
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1668
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1669
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1671
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1673
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1676
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1677
Recognition 1678
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1679
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1680
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1681
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1682
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1683
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1684
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1685
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1686
long-term Extreme function. 1687
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1688
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1689
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1690
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1691
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1692
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1693
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1694
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1695
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1696
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1697
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1698
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1699
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1700
find either the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition or the Extreme 1701
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1702
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1703
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1704
SuperHyperModel 1705
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1706
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1707
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1708
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1709
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1710
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1711
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1712
the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1713
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1714
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1715
SuperHyperModel 1716
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1717
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1718
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1719
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1720
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1721
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1723
is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1724
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1725
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1726
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1727
The SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme 1728
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled 1729
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1730
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1731
recognitions? 1732
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1733
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition? 1734
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1735
compute them? 1736
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1737
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition? 1738
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme 1739
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1740
they’re based on SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, are there else? 1741
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1742
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1743
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1744
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1745
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1746
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1747
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1748
highlighted. 1749
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1750
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1751
SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1752
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1753
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1754
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1755
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1756
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1757
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1758
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1759
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1760
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1761
the SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition. 1762
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1763
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1764
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1765
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1766
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1767
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1768
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1769
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1770
formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 1771
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 1772
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition
3. Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Path-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1773
avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1774
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1775
Forms 1777
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1778
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1779
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1780
V 0 or E 0 is called 1781
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1782
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1783
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1784
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1785
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1786
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1787
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1788
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1789
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1790
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1791
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1792
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1793
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1794
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1795
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1797
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1798
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1799
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1800
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1801
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1802
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1803
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1805
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1806
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1807
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1808
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1809
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1810
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1811
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1812
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1813
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1814
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1816
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1817
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1818
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1819
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1820
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1821
Extreme coefficient; 1822
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1823
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1833
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1840
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1841
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1845
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1846
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1847
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1848
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1849
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1853
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1854
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1858
Extreme coefficient. 1867
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1871
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1872
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1873
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1874
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1875
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1877
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1880
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1881
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1882
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1883
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1884
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1885


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1928
Then 1929
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1930
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1934
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1938
Then 1940
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1941
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1949
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1950
Then 1951
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1952
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1962
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1963
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1964
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1965
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 1970
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1971
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1972
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1974
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1975
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1983

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1986
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1987

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1993
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2003
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2004
Then, 2006
∗ ∗
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2007
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2008
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2009

∃!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 2014
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2015
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2017
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2018
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2020
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2021
Forms 2023
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2024
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2028
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2029
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2030
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2031
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2033
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2034
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2035
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2036
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2038
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2039
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2040
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2043
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2044
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2045
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2046
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2047
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2048
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2049
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2050
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2052
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2056
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2057
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2058
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2059
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2065
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2067
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2077
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2081
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2082
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2083
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2084
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2088
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2090
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2091
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2101
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2114
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2115
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2120
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2122
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2128


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2172
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2173
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2177
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2181
Then 2183

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

.
Proof. Let 2184
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2192
Then 2194
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2195

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2205
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2208
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 2213
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2214
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2215
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2217
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2226

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2229
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2230
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2231

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2234
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2235
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2236
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2247
Then, 2249

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

.
Proof. Let 2250
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2251

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2255
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2256
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2257
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2258
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2263
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2264
Forms 2266
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2267
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2271
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2272
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2273
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2274
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2276
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2277
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2278
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2279
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2281
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2282
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2283
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2284
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2287
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2289
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2293
SuperHyperPerfect; 2294
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2295
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2297
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2301
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2302
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2303
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2304
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2310
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2312
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2322
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2323
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2329
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2330
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2331
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2334
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2335
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2336
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2337
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2338
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2347
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2360
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2366
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2374


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2418
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2419
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2423
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2427
Then 2429
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2430
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2438
Then 2440
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2441

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2451
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2454
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 2459
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2460
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2461
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2462
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2463
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2472

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2475
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2476

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2480
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2481
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2482
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2493
Then, 2495
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2496
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2497

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2501
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2502
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2503
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2504
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2509
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2510
Forms 2512
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2513
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2517
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2518
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2519
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2520
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2522
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2523
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2524
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2525
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2527
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2528
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2529
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2530
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2533
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2535
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2539
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2540
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2542
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2546
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2547
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2548
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2549
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2555
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2557
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2567
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2571
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2572
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2573
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2574
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2578
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2580
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2581
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2591
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2604
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2610
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2618


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2662
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2663
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2667
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2671
Then 2673
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2674
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2682
Then 2684
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2685
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2695
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2698
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2703
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2704
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2707
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2716

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2719
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2720
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2721

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2724
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2725
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2737
Then, 2739
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2740
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2741

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2745
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2746
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2747
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2748
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2753
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2754
Forms 2756
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2757
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2761
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2762
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2763
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2764
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2766
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2767
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2768
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2769
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2771
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2772
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2773
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2774
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2777
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2779
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2780
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2781
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2782
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2784
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2785
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2788
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2789
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2790
SuperHyperConnected; 2792
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2793
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2794
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2796
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2801
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2803
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2804
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2813
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2817
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2818
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2820
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2821
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2825
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2826
SuperHyperConnected; 2828
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2829
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2830
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2831
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2832
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2839
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2840
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2852
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2853
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2854
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2855
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2856
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2857
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2858
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2859
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2862
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2863
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2864
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2865
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2867


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2931
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2932
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2936
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2940
Then 2942
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2943
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2946
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2951
Then 2953
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2954
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2964
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2967
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2972
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2973
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2976
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2977
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2985
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2988
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2989

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2993
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2994
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3006
Then, 3008
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3009
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3010

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3014
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3015
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3016
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3017
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3023
17 Background 3024
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3025
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3026
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3027
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3028
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3029
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3030
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3031
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3032
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3033
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3034
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3035
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3036
results based on initial background. 3037
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3038
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3039
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3040
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3041
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3042
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3043
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3044
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3045
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3046
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3047
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3048
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3049
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3050
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3051
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3052
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3053
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3054
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3055
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3056
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3057
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3058
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3059
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3060
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3061
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3062
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3063
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3064
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3065
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3066
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3067
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3068
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3069
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3070
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3071
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3072
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3073
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3074
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3075
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3076
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3077
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3078
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3079
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3080
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3081
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3082
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3083
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3084
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3085
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3086
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3087
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3088
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3089
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3090
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3091
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3092
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3093
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3094
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3095
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3096
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3097
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3098
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3099
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3100
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3101
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3102
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3103
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3104
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3105
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3106
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3107
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3108
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3109
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3110
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3111
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3112
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3113
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [144] by Henry Garrett 3114
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3115
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3116
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett 3117
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3118
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3119
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [146] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3120
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3121
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3122
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [147] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3123
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [150] by 3125
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3126
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3127
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [151] by Henry 3128
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3129
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3130
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [154] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3131
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3132
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [157] by Henry 3133
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3134
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3135
in Ref. [158] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3136
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3137
Ref. [159] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3138
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [160] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3140
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3141
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [161] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3142
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3143
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3144
in Ref. [162] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3145
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3146
in Ref. [173] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3147
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3148
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [174] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3149
and [4–174], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3150
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3151
books at [175–274]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3152
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [275, 276]. 3153
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3154
proposed as book in Ref. [263] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3155
Scholar and has more than 4216 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3156
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3157
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3158
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3159
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3160
proposed as book in Ref. [264] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3161
Scholar and has more than 5214 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3162
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3163
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3164
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3165
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3166
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3167
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3168
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3169
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3170
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–174] 3171
alongside scientific research books at [175–274]. Two popular scientific research books 3172
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4216 and 5214 respectively, on neutrosophic 3173
science is on [275, 276]. 3174
References 3175
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3176
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3177
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3178
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3179
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3180
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3181
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3182
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3183
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3184
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3185
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3186
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3187
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3188
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3189
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3190
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3191
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3192
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3193
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3194
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3195
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3196
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3197
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3198
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3199
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3200
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3201
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3202
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3203
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3204
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3205
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3206
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3207
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3208
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3209
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3210
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3211
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3212
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3213
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3214
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3215
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3216
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3217
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3218
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3219
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3220
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3221
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3222
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3223
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3224
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3225
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3226
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3227
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3228
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3229
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3230
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3231
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3232
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3233
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3234
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3235
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3236
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3237
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3238
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3239
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3240
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3241
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3242
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3244
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3245
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3246
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3247
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3248
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3249
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3251
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3255
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3256
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3257
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3258
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3259
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3260
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3261
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3262
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3263
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3264
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3265
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3266
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3267
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3268
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3269
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3270
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3271
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3272
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3273
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3274
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3275
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3276
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7819531). 3277
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3279
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3280
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3282
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3283
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3285
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3286
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3287
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3288
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809219). 3289
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3291
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809328). 3292
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3294
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3295
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3296
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3297
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3300
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3301
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3302
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3303
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3304
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3305
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3306
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On 3308
Super Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3309
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3310
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3311
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3314
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7796334). 3315
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3317
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3318
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3320
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3321
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3323
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3326
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3327
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3329
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3332
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3333
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3335
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3338
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3341
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3344
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3347
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3349
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3350
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3351
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3353
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3356
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3357
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3358
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3359
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3360
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3362
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3365
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3366
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3368
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3369
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3371
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3374
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3376
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3377
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3378
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3380
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3383
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3386
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3387
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3389
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3392
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3394
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3396
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3398
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3400
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3401
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3404
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3406
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3407
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3410
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3412
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3414
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3416
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3418
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3419
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3422
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3423
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3425
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3428
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3430
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3432
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3434
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3435
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3437
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3439
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3441
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3443
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3444
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3445
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3446
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3447
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3449
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3450
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3451
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3452
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3455
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3457
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3458
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3461
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3462
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3463
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3464
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3467
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3469
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3471
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3473
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3474
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3475
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3476
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3479
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3480
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3481
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3482
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3485
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3486
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3487
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3488
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3491
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3492
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3493
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3494
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3497
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3498
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3499
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3500
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3503
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3504
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3505
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3506
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3508
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3509
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3512
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3513
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3514
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3515
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3518
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3519
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3520
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3521
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3524
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3526
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3527
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3530
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3531
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3532
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3533
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3535
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3536
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3539
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3540
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3542
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3544
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3545
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3547
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3548
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3550
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3551
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3552
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3554
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3555
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3556
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3557
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3559
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3560
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3561
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3562
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3563
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3564
121. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3565
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3566
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3567
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3568
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3571
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3572
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3575
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3576
124. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3577
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3579
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3580
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3583
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3584
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3587
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3588
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3589
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3590
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3591
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3592
128. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3593
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3594
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3595
129. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3596
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3597
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3598
130. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3599
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3600
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3601
131. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3602
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3603
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3604
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3605
132. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3606
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3607
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3608
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3609
133. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3610
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3611
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3612
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3613
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3614
134. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3615
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3616
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3617
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3618
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3619
135. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3620
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3621
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3622
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3623
136. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3624
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3625
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3626
137. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3627
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3628
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3630
138. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3631
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3632
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3633
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3634
139. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3635
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3636
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3637
140. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3638
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3639
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3640
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3641
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3642
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3643
141. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3644
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3645
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3646
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3647
142. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3648
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3649
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3650
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3651
143. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3652
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3653
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3654
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3655
144. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3656
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3657
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3658
145. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3659
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3660
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3661
146. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3663
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3664
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3665
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3666
147. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3667
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3668
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3669
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3670
148. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3671
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3672
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3673
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3674
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3676
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3677
150. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3678
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3679
151. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3681
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3682
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3683
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3688
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3692
154. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3693
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3694
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3695
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3696
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3699
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3701
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3702
157. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3703
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3704
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3707
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3708
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3710
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3711
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3714
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3715
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3717
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3718
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3721
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3722
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3724
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3725
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3727
165. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3729
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3732
166. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3734
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3737
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3744
169. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3745
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3746
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3747
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3748
170. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3749
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3750
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3751
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3752
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3755
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3756
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3759
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3760
173. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3761
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3762
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3763
174. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3764
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3765
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3766
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3767
175. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3768
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3769
176. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3770
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812142). 3771
177. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In 3772
SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3773
178. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3774
179. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3776
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804449). 3777
180. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3778
181. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3780
182. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3782
183. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3784
184. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3786
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3787
185. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3788
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3789
186. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3790
187. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3792
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3793
188. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3794
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3795
189. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3796
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3797
190. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3798
191. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3800
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3801
192. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3802
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3803
193. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3804
194. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3806
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3807
195. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3808
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3809
196. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3810
197. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3812
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3813
198. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3814
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3815
199. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3816
200. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3818
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3819
201. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3820
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3821
202. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3822
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3823
203. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3824
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3825
204. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3826
205. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3828
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3829
206. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3830
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3831
207. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3832
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3833
208. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3834
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3835
209. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3836
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3837
210. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3838
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3839
211. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3840
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3841
212. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3842
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3843
213. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3844
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3845
214. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3846
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3847
215. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3848
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3849
216. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3850
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3851
217. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3852
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3853
218. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3854
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3855
219. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3856
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3857
220. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3858
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3859
221. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3860
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3861
222. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3862
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3863
223. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3864
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3865
224. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3866
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3867
225. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3868
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3869
226. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3870
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3871
227. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3872
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3873
228. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3874
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3875
229. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3876
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3877
230. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3878
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3879
231. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3880
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3881
232. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3882
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3883
233. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3884
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3885
234. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3886
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3887
235. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3888
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3889
236. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3890
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3891
237. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3892
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3893
238. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3894
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3895
239. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3896
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3897
240. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3898
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3899
241. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3900
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3901
242. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3902
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3903
243. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3904
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3905
244. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3906
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3907
245. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3908
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3909
246. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3910
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3911
247. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3912
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3913
248. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3914
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3915
249. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3916
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3917
250. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3918
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3919
251. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3920
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3921
252. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3922
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3923
253. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3924
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3925
254. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3926
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3927
255. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3928
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3929
256. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3930
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3931
257. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3932
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3933
258. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3934
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3935
259. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3936
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3937
260. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3938
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3939
261. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3940
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3941
262. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3942
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3943
263. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3945
264. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3946
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3947
265. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3948
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3949
266. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3950
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3951
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3953
268. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3955
269. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3956
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3957
270. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3958
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3959
271. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3960
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3961
272. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3962
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3963
273. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3964
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3965
274. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3966
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3967
275. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3968
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3969
276. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3970
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3971
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Eulerian-Path-

Preprint · April 2023

441 PUBLICATIONS 11,674 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2

Of Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition 3

With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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