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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370070007
New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
448 PUBLICATIONS 12,569 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 18 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As 3
Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10
(NSHG) S is a Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11
SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 12
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following expression 13
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 14
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
a SuperHyperPath and it has
the maximum number of SuperHyperEdges;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 16
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 19
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following expression is 20
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 21
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 24
re-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 25
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 26
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) 27
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28
(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 30
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 31
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 35
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 45
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 46
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 47
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 48
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 49
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 55
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 56
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 57
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 58
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 60
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 61
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 67
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 68
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 69
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 70
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 72
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 73
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 79
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 80
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 81
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 83
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 84
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 89
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 90
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; an Extreme 93
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 94
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 99
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 100
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 101
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 104
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 105
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 111
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 112
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 113
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 116
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 117
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 118
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Two different types of 119
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 120
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 121
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 122
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 123
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 124
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 125
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 126
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 127
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 128
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 129
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 130
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 131
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 132
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 133
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 134
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 135
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 136
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 137
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 138
δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 139
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 140
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 141
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 142
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 143
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 144
δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is a maximal Neutrosophic of 145
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 146
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 147
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 148
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 149
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 150
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 151
version of a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 152
type-results to make a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition more understandable. For 153
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s a need to 154
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ”. The 155
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 156
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 157
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition . It’s redefined a 158
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, 159
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 160
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 161
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 162
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 163
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 164
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 165
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 166
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 167
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 168
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 169
have all SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition until the 170
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then it’s officially called a 171
“SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 172
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition . There are some instances about the clarifications 173
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ”. These two 174
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 175
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 176
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 177
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 178
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 179
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 180
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 181
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 182
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 183
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition are redefined to a 184
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s 185
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 186
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 188
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 189
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 190
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 191
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 192
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 193
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 194
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 195
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” where it’s the strongest [the 196
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition amid 197
the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 198
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition .] SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition . A graph 199
is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 200
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 201
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 202
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 203
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 204
two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 205
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one 206
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 207
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 208
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 209
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 210
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 211
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 212
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 213
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 214
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, 215
The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 216
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 217
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 218
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 219
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 220
SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 221
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 222
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 223
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 224
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 225
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 226
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 227
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 228
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 229
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 230
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 231
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 233
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 234
either the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition or the strongest 235
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For 236
the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, called 237
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and the strongest 238
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 239
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond that 240
in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but 241
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any 242
style of a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 243
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 244
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 245
basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition theory, 246
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 247
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 248
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 249
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 250
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 251
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 252
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 253
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 254
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 255
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 256
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 257
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 258
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 259
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 260
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 261
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 262
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 263
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 264
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 265
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 266
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 267
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 268
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 269
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 270
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 271
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 272
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 273
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 274
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 275
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 276
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 277
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 278
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 279
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 280
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 281
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 282
formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 283
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 284
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 285
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 286
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 287
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 288
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 289
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 291
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 292
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 293
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 294
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 295
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 296
either the optimal SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition or the Neutrosophic 297
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 298
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 299
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 300
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 301
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 302
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 303
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 304
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 305
find the “ amount of SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or 306
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 307
“amount of SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 308
fixed groups of group of cells? 309
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 310
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 311
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 312
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 313
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic 314
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic 315
SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 316
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 317
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 318
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 319
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 320
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 321
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 322
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 323
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 324
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 325
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 326
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 327
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 328
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and Neutrosophic 329
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, are figured out in sections “ 330
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic 331
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 332
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 333
SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 334
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 335
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 336
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 337
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 338
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 339
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 340
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 341
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 342
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 343
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 344
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 346
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done 347
about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going 348
to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 349
presented in section, “ SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”. The keyword of this 350
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 351
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 352
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 353
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 354
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 355
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 356
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 357
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 358
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 359
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 360
Research On the Redeemed Ways 361
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 362
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [179],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 363
Set](Ref. [179],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 364
(NSHG)](Ref. [179],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [179],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [179], 366
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 367
(NSHG)](Ref. [179],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [179],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 369
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [179],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 370
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [179]. 371
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 372
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 373
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [179],Definition 2.1,p.1). 374
Let X be a Eulerian-Type-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 375
+
]− 0, 1 [. 376
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [179],Definition 2.2,p.2). 377
Let X be a Eulerian-Type-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. [179],Definition 378
2.5,p.2). 379
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 380
pair S = (V, E), where 381
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 382
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 383
1, 2, . . . , n); 384
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 385
V; 386
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 387
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 388
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 389
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 390
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 391
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 392
(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 . 393
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 394
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 395
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 396
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 397
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 398
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 399
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 400
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 401
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 402
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 403
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 404
(Ref. [179],Definition 2.7,p.3). 405
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 406
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 407
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 408
characterized as follow-up items. 409
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 410
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 411
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 412
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 413
HyperEdge; 414
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 415
SuperEdge; 416
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 417
SuperHyperEdge. 418
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 419
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 420
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [179], Definition 2.7, p.3). 421
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 422
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 423
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 424
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 425
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 426
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 427
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)). 428
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 429
pair S = (V, E), where 430
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 431
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 432
1, 2, . . . , n); 433
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 434
V; 435
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 436
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 437
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 438
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 439
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 440
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 441
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 442
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 443
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 444
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 445
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 446
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 447
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 448
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 449
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 450
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 451
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 452
(Ref. [179],Definition 2.7,p.3). 453
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 454
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 455
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 456
characterized as follow-up items. 457
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 458
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 459
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 460
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 461
HyperEdge; 462
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 463
SuperEdge; 464
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 465
SuperHyperEdge. 466
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 467
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 468
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 469
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 470
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 471
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 472
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 473
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 474
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 475
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 476
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 477
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 478
given SuperHyperEdges; 479
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 480
SuperHyperEdges; 481
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 482
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 483
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 484
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 485
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 486
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 487
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 488
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 489
common SuperVertex. 490
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 491
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 492
of following conditions hold: 493
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 494
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 495
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 496
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 497
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 498
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 499
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 500
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 501
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 502
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 503
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 504
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. 505
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 506
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 507
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 508
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 509
SuperHyperPath . 510
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 511
(Ref. [179],Definition 5.3,p.7). 512
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 513
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 514
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 515
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 516
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 517
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 518
(NSHE)). (Ref. [179],Definition 5.4,p.7). 519
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 520
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 521
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 522
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 523
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 524
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 525
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 526
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 528
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 529
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 531
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 532
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 533
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 534
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 535
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). 536
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 538
either V 0 or E 0 is called 539
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 540
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 541
criteria holds 542
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 543
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 544
criteria holds 545
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 546
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 547
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 548
criteria holds 549
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 550
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 551
criteria holds 552
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 553
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 554
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 558
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). 559
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 562
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 567
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 568
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 569
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 570
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 571
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 572
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 577
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 578
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 581
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 582
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 588
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 589
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 590
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 591
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 593
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 594
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 595
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 601
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 602
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 603
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 604
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 605
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the 606
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 607
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 608
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 615
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 617
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 618
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 623
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 624
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 628
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 636
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 639
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 640
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 641
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 649
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the 652
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 653
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). 654
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 655
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of 656
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition such that either of the 657
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
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 658
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 659
|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 660
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 661
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic 662
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition such that either of the 663
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 664
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 665
|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. 666
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 667
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 668
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s a 669
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 670
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 671
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 672
assign to the values. 673
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 674
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 675
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 676
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 677
understandable. 678
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 679
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 680
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 681
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 682
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 683
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 684
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 685
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 686
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 687
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 688

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly 689
understandable. 690
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s a 691
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 692
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 693
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 694
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 695
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 696
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 697
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 698
As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 699
Super Forms 700
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 701
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of 703
V is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 704
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 705
probability of A. 706
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 707
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I 709
is called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 710
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 711
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 712
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 713
criteria 714
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 715
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Any k-function 717
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then 718
any 2-function Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 719
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 720
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 721
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has 723
a number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 724
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 725
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 726
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic number is called 728
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 729
Crossing criteria 730
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 731
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let m and n 732
propose special Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 733
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 734
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 735
Neutrosophic independently with probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and 736
set H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 737
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 738
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
739
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 740
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a 741
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 742
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 743
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 744
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 745
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 746
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 747
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 748
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 749
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 750
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 751
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a 753
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 754
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 755
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 756
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 757
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 758
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 759
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
760
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 761
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 762
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 763
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 764
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 765
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 766
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 767
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 768
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 769
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 770
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 771
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a 772
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 773
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. 774
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 775
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 776
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 777
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 778
Proof. 779
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. A special 781
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 782
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. A special 784
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of 785
k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 786
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 787
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 788
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 789
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 790
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 791
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 792
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 793
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: 794
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 795
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 796
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 797
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 798
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 799
stability number at most k. 800
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 801
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has 803
a number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 804
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 805
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a 807
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 808
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a Neutrosophic 810
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 811
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
812
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 814
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 815
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 816
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and 818
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 819
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 820
when Xn = 0. 821
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 823
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 824
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 825
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 826
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. As in the proof of related 828
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 829
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 831
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 832
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 833
or 834
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 835
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The latter is 837
straightforward. 838
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 839
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 841
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 842
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 843
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 844
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 845
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 846
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 848
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 849
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 850
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a 852
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 853
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 854
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 855
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The latter is 857
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 859
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 860
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 861
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 862
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 863
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 864
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 865
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 866
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 867
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 868
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 869
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 870
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition
= {{V1 }, {V2 }, {V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z.
871
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 874
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 875
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 876
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 877
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 878
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 879
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 880

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 }, {V2 }, {V4 }}.
= 3z.
881
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 884

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }}.
= 3z.
885




= {{E4 , E1 , E2 }, {E5 , E1 , E2 }}.
= 2z 3 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= 2z 9 .
889

= {{E1 , E4 }, {Ei , Ej }}.
= 6z 2 .
= {{Vi ∈ VEa , Vj ∈ VEb }}.
= z 10 + 4z 9 + z 8 .
893


= {Eii=110 , Eii=2232 }, . . .}.
= 11z 10 .
= {{Vii=122 }}.
= 11z 22 .
897

= {{Eii=110 , E17 , E14 , E13 }}.
= 3z 13 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= 3z 13 .
901




= {{E3 , E4 , E2 }}.
= 3z 3 .
= {{Vii=414 }, . . .}.
= z 11 + 2z 10 .
905

= {{Eii=110 , E22 , E23 }}.
= 11z 12 .
= {{Vii=122 }}.
= 11z 22 .
909


= {{E2 , E7 , E3 }}.
= 3z 3 .
= {{Vii=414 }, . . .}.
= z 11 + 2z 10 .
913

= {{E1 , E6 , E5 , E4 }}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vii=16 }}.
= 3z 6 .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic No-

tions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)
917

= {{E1 , E6 }}.
= 5z 2 .
= {{Vii=13 , Vii=79 }, . . .}
= 5z 6 .
921

(16.3)

= {{E10 , E1 , E6 , E5 , E4 }}.
= 4z 5 .
= {{Vii=16 }}.
= 4z 6 .
925

= {{E1 , E2 }}.
= z2.
= {{V2 , V1 , V3 }}.
= z3.
929

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z5.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }}.
= z6.
933

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
937

(16.3)

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
941

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
945

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG \ {Ej }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |{Ei ∈EN SHG \{Ej }}| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG \ {VEj }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |Vi ∈VN SHG \{VEj }| .
949

= {{Ei , Ej }}.
= Ten Choose Two z 2 .
= {{VEi , VEj }}.
X |{V ,V }|
= z Ei Ej .

(16.3)
953

= {{E2 }}.
= z.
= {{V2 , {R}, {M6 }, {L6 }, {F }, {P }, {J}, {M }, V1 , V3 }}.
= z 10 .
957

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG \ {E1 }}}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG \{E1 }}| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG \ {VE1 }}}.
= z {|Vi ∈VN SHG \{VE1 }}| .
961
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 962
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 963
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other 964
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 965
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 966
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 967
amount of them. 968
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 969
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 970
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 971
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic 972
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 973
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 974
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 975
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 976
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 977
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 978
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 979
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 980
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 981
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in 982
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 983
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 984
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic 985
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 986
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with the least Neutrosophic 987
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 988
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 989
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 990
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, 991
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 992
type-result-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is the cardinality of 993

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition since neither amount of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to
form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

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

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

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is the cardinality
of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the
connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-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 994
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 995
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 996
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 997
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 998
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 999
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 1000
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1001
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition

decorates the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic
connections so as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 1002
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 1003
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 1004
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 1005
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 1006
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic

E
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) .
Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 1007
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1008
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 1009
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of 1010
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the 1011
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the 1012
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1013
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 1014
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 1015
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 1016
SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a 1017
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1018
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 1019
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 1020
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 1021
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1022
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 1023
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 1024
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1025
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 1026
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1027
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1028
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 1029
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1030
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 1031
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The 1032
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1033
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1034
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1035
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1036
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1037
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1038
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1039
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1040
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1041
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1042
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types 1043
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1044
Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic 1045
SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1046
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1047
embedded Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior 1048
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1049
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1050
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1051
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1052
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1053
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with the 1054
exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1055
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1056
with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1057
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. To sum them up, 1058
in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s 1059
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1060
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1061
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic 1062
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 1063
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1064
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 1065
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1066
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition has two titles. a 1067
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1068
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1069
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with 1070
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1071
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1072
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1073
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decompositions for all Neutrosophic 1074
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1075
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ends up but this essence starts up in the terms 1076
of the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, again and more in the operations 1077
of collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decompositions acted on the all 1078
possible used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one 1079
Neutrosophic number. This Neutrosophic number is 1080
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1081
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decompositions. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1082
and GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1083
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then 1084
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1085
is re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1086
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1087
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1088
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1089
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1090
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1091
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1092

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1093
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic C


1094
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1095

1096

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1097
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1099
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1100
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the 1101
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” since “Neutrosophic 1102
Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” happens “Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” in a 1103
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1104
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic 1105
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1106
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1107
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1108
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic 1109
Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”, and “Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” are up. 1110
Thus, let 1111
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1112
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1113
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the new 1114
terms are up. 1115
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1116
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1117
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1118
And with go back to initial structure, 1119
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic C


1120
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1121

1122

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1123
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1124
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1125
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1126
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1127
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1128
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1129
are coming up. 1130
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1131
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1132
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1133
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1134
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1135
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is related to the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

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

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

R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1136
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1138
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1139
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and it’s an 1140
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1141
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1142
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1143
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1144
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1145
“Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” 1146
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1147
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 1148
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition
amid those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1149
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is
the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1150
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1151
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1153
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1154
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1155
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1157
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1158
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1159
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1160
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1161
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1162
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1163
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1165
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1166
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1167
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1168
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1170
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1172
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1173
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the 1174
Neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 1175
have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one 1176
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected 1177
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1178
titled its Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in 1179
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1180
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1181
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1182
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, VESHE is up. The obvious 1183
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1184
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , 1185
includes only all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of 1186
Neutrosophic pairs are titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 1187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic 1188
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1189
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1190
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1191
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1192
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1193
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1194
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1196
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1197
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1198
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1200
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither 1201
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1202
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1203
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The 1204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1205

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1206
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1207
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1208

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1209
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1210
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1213
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1214
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic 1216
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1217
called the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1218
includes only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic 1219
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1220

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1221
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1222
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1223
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1224

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1225
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1226
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1227

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1228
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1229
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1230
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1231
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and it’s an 1232
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1233
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1235
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1236
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1237
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1238
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1239

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition , 1240

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1241
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, not: 1242

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1243

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1244
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1245
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1246
“Neutrosophic Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ” 1247
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1248
Neutrosophic ,
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1249
is only and only 1250

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1251
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1252
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1253
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1254
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1255
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1256
Then 1257

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
Proof. Let 1258
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1259
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1260
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1261
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 1262
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1263
The latter is straightforward. 1264
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1265
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1266
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1267
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1268
Then 1269

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG \ {Ej }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |{Ei ∈EN SHG \{Ej }}| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG \ {VEj }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |Vi ∈VN SHG \{VEj }| .
Proof. Let 1270
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1271
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1272
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1273

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1277
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1278
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1279
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1281
Then 1282

= {{Ei , Ej }}.
= |EN SHG |Choose Two z 2 .
= {{VEi , VEj }}.
X |{V ,V }|
= z Ei Ej .
Proof. Let 1283
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.7)
1284
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1285
There’s a new way to redefine as 1286

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1290
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1291
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1292
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1293
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1294
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1296
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1297

= {{Ei ∈ PNmin
SHG }}.
X min
= z |{Ei ∈PN SHG }| .
= {{VEi ∈PNmin
SHG
}}.
X |{V min }|
= z Ei ∈PN SHG .
Proof. Let 1298
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
1299
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1300
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1301

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1304
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1305
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition could be applied. 1306
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1307
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1308
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1309
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1310
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1311
solution 1312
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1314
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1315
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1316
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1317
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1318
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1319
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1320
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1321

= {{Ei ∈ PNmin
SHG }}.
X min
= z |{Ei ∈PN SHG }| .
= {{VEi ∈PNmin
SHG
}}.
X |{V min }|
= z Ei ∈PN SHG .
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Example
(16.11)
Proof. Let 1322
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
1323
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1325

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1328
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1329
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1331
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1333
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1334
solution 1336
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1338
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1339
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1340
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1341
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1342
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1343
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1344
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1345
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1346

= {{Ei ∈ (EN SHG \ {Ej }) ∪ {Ek∗ }}}.
∗
= |EN SHG |z |{Ei ∈(EN SHG \{Ej })∪{Ek }}| .
= {{VEi ∈(EN SHG \{Ej })∪{Ek∗ } }}.
X |{V ∗ }|
= z Ei ∈(EN SHG \{Ej })∪{Ek } .
Proof. Let 1347
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1348
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1350

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1353
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1354
The unique embedded SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition proposes some longest 1356
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1357
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1360
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1361
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1362
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1363
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1365
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1366
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 1367
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, some general results are 1368
introduced. 1369
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is 1370
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1371
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then 1372
N eutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian − T ype − P ath − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − T ype − P ath − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − T ype − P ath − Decomposition
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1373
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1374
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1375
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1376
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and 1377
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition coincide. 1378
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1380
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a 1381
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1384
strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1385
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1387
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1388
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is its SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and reversely. 1389
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1390
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1391
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1392
letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is its 1393
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and reversely. 1394
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1395
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1396
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1397
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1398
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1399
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1403
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1404
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1406
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1407
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined. 1408
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1409
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1410
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1414
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1415
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1417
is 1418
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1419
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1420
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1421
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1422
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1423
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1424
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1425
∅ is 1426
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1427
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1428
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1429
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1430
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1431
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1432
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1433
independent SuperHyperSet is 1434
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1435
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1436
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1437
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1438
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1439
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1440
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1441
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1442
is a maximal 1443
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1444
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1445
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1446
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1447
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1448
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1449
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1450
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1451
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1452
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1453
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1454
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1455
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1456
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1457
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1458
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1459
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1461
the number of 1462
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1463
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1464
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1465
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1466
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1467
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1468
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1469
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1470
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1472
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1473
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1474
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1475
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1476
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1477
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1478
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1479
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1482
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1483
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1484
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1485
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1489
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1490
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1491
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1495
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1496
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1497
is a 1498
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1502
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1503
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1504
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1507
number of 1508
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1512
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1513
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1514
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1516
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1517
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1518
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1520
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1521
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1525
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1526
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1527
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1528
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1529
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1530
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1531
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1532
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1536
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1538
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1541
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1542
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1546
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1547
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1548
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1550
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1552
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1553
of a dual 1554
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1558
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1559
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1560
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1563
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1564
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1565
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1571
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1573
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1574
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1575
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1576
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1577
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1578
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then 1579
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1580
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1581
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1582
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1583
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then 1584
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition set; 1585
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1586
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1587
Then 1588
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1589
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1590
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1591
which is connected. Then 1592
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1593
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1594
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1595
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1596
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1598
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1599
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1600
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1601
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1602
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1603
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1605
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1606
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1607
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1608
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1609
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1610
Then 1611
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1612
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1614
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1615
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1616
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1617
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1619
Then 1620
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1621
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1623
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1624
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1625
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1627
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1628
(ii) Γ = 1; 1629
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1630
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1631
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1633
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1634
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1635
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1636
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1637
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1638
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1639
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1640
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1641
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1643
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1644
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1645
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1647
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1648
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1650

bnc ; 1651
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1652
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1654
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1655
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1656
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition for N SHF; 1657
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1658
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1659
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1660
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1661
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1662
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1663
SuperHyperSet. Then 1664
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1665
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition for N SHF; 1666
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1667

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1668
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1669
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1671
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1672
SuperHyperSet. Then 1673
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1674
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1675
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1676

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1677
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1678
Then following statements hold; 1681
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1682
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then S is an 1683
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1684
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1685
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1686
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1687
Then following statements hold; 1689
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1690
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then S is an 1691
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1692
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1693
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1694
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1695
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1696
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1697
statements hold; 1698
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1699
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1700
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1701
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1703
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1705
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1706
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1707
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1708
statements hold; 1709
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1710
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1712
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1714
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1716
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1717
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1719
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1720
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1721
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1723
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1725
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1728
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1730
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1731
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1732
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1734
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1736
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1737
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1739
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1741
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1742
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1743
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1745
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1747
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1750
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1752
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1753
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1754
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1756
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1758
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1761
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1762
Neutrosophic Recognition 1763
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure out 1764
what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of this 1765
Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1766
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1767
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1768
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1769
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1770
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1771
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1772
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1773
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1774
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1775
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1776
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1777
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1778
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened 1779
and what’s done. 1780
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which 1781
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. 1782
The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1783
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 1784
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1786
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition or the Neutrosophic 1787
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1788
SuperHyperModels. 1789
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1790
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1791
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1792
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1793
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1794
featured. 1795
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1796
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1797
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1798
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1799
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1800
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1802
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1803
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1804
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1805
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1806
featured. 1807
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1808
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1809
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1810
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1811
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1812
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1814
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1815
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1816
The SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1817
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s 1818
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition
Recognitions”. 1819
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1820
recognitions? 1821
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1822
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition? 1823
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1824
compute them? 1825
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1826
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition? 1827
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1828
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1829
and they’re based on SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, are there else? 1830
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1831
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1832
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1833
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1834
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1835
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1836
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1837
highlighted. 1838
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1839
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1840
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1841
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1842
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1843
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1844
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 1845
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1846
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1847
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1848
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1849
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1850
the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1851
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 1852
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 1853
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1854
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1855
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1856
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1857
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1858
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1859
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” in the 1860
themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the 1861
embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1862
(6), benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1863
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1864
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1865
Forms 1866
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1867
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1871
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1872
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1873
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1874
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1875
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1876
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1877
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1878
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1879
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1880
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1881
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1882
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1883
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1884
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1887
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1889
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1890
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1891
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1892
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1894
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1895
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1898
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1899
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1902
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1903
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1904
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1905
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1906
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1907
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1908
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1909
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1910
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1911
Extreme coefficient; 1912
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1913
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1914
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1916
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1917
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1918
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1922
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1923
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1924
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1929
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1931
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1932
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1936
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1939
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1940
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1945
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1946
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1948
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1950
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1959
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1960
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1964
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1965
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1966
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1967
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1968
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1969
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1970
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1971
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1974
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1975
SuperHyperDuality. 1980


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2043
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2044
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 2045
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 2049
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2053
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2054
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2055
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 2056
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2067
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2068
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2078
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2081
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 2086
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2087
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2090
solution 2093
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2100

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2103
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2104

P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2115
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2123
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2126
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2127
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2128

∃!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 2133
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2134
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2141
Forms 2143
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2144
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2148
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2149
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2150
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2151
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2153
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2154
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2155
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2156
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2158
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2159
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2160
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2161
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2164
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2165
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2166
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2171
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2172
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2174
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2175
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2179
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2180
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2181
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2182
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2183
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2188
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2190
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2193
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2194
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2195
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2199
coefficient; 2200
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2201
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2204
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2205
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2208
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2209
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2216
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2217
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2225
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2227
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2236
coefficient. 2237
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2241
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2242
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2243
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2244
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2245
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2246
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2247
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2248
SuperHyperJoin. 2249
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2323
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2327
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2331

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

.
Proof. Let 2334
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2345
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2346

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2356
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2359
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 2364
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2365
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2368
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2369
solution 2371
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2378

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2381
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2382

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2386
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2387
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2393
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2401

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

.
Proof. Let 2404
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2405

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2409
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2410
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2411
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2412
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2419
Forms 2421
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2422
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2426
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2427
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2428
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2429
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2431
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2432
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2433
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2434
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2436
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2437
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2438
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2439
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2442
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2444
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2447
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2449
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2450
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2457
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2458
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2459
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2460
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2466
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2468
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2469
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2477
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2479
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2484
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2486
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2487
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2494
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2495
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2503
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2505
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2514
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2519
SuperHyperPerfect. 2527
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2601
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2609
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2612
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2623
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2624

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2634
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2637
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 2642
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2643
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2644
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2645
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2646
solution 2649
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2656

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2659
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2660

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2664
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2665
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2666
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2671
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2679
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2682

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2683

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2687
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2688
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2689
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2690
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2697
Forms 2699
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2700
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2704
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2705
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2706
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2707
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2709
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2710
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2711
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2712
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2714
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2715
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2716
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2717
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2720
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2722
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2727
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2728
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2730
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2735
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2736
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2737
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2744
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2746
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2755
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2757
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2764
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2765
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2772
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2773
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2781
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2783
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2792
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2797
SuperHyperTotal. 2805
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2879
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2883
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2887
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

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

Then 2901
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2902
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2912
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2915
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2920
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2921
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2924
solution 2927
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2934

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2937
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2938

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2942
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2943
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2949
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2957
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2960
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2961

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2965
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2966
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2967
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2968
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2975
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2976
Forms 2977
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2978
SuperHyperConnected). 2979
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2983
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2984
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2985
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2986
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2987
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2988
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2990
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2991
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2992
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2993
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2994
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2995
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2997
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2998
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2999
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 3000
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3003
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 3005
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3006
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3007
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3008
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3010
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3011
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3014
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 3015
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3018
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 3019
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 3020
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 3021
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 3022
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 3023
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 3024
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 3025
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 3027
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 3028
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3029
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 3030
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 3031
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3032
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 3035
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3038
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3039
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3040
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3043
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3044
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3045
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3047
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3048
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3051
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3052
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3055
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3056
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3059
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3062
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3065
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3067
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3070
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3073
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3076
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3077
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3081
SuperHyperConnected. 3089
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3163
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3171
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3174
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3185
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3186
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3196
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3199
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3204
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3205
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3208
solution 3211
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3218
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3221
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3226
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3227
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3233
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3241
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3244
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3246

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3249
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3250
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3251
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3252
17 Background 3260
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3261
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3262
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3263
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3264
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3265
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3266
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3267
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3268
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3269
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3270
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3271
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3272
results based on initial background. 3273
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3274
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3275
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3276
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3277
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3278
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3279
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3280
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3281
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3282
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3283
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3284
SuperHyperNumbers. 3285
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3286
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3287
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3288
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3289
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3290
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3291
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3292
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3293
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3294
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3295
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3296
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3297
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3298
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3299
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3300
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3301
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3302
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3303
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3304
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3305
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3306
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3307
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3308
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3309
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3310
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3311
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3312
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3313
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3314
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3315
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3316
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3317
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3318
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3319
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3320
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3321
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3322
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3323
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3324
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3325
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3326
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3327
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3328
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3329
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3330
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3331
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3332
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3333
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3334
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3335
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3336
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3337
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3338
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3339
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3340
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3341
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3342
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3343
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3344
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3345
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3346
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3347
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3348
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [149] by Henry 3349
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3350
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3351
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [150] by Henry Garrett 3352
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3353
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3354
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [151] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3355
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3356
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3357
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [152] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3358
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3359
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [155] by 3360
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3361
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3362
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [156] by Henry 3363
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3364
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3365
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [159] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3366
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3367
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [162] by Henry 3368
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3369
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3370
in Ref. [163] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3371
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3372
Ref. [164] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3373
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3374
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [165] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3375
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3376
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [166] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3377
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3378
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [167] by Henry Garrett 3379
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3380
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [178] by Henry 3381
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3382
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3383
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [179] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–179], there 3384
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3385
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [180–282]. 3386
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3387
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [283, 284]. 3388
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3389
proposed as book in Ref. [271] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3390
Scholar and has more than 4276 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3391
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3392
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3393
theory. 3394
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3395
proposed as book in Ref. [272] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3396
Scholar and has more than 5274 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3397
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3398
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3399
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3400
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3401
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3402
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3403
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3404
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3405
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–179] alongside scientific 3406
research books at [180–282]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3407
of high readers, 4276 and 5274 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [283, 284]. 3408
References 3409
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3410
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3411
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3412
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3413
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3414
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3415
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3416
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3417
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3418
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3419
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3420
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3421
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3422
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3423
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3424
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3425
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3426
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3427
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3428
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3429
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3430
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3431
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3432
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3433
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3434
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3435
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3436
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3437
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3438
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3439
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3440
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3441
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3442
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3443
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3444
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3445
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3446
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3447
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3448
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3449
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3450
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3451
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3452
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3453
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3454
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3455
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3456
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3457
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3458
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3459
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3460
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3461
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3462
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3463
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3464
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3465
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3466
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3467
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3468
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3469
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3470
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3471
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3472
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3473
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3474
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3475
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3476
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3477
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3478
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3479
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3480
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3481
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3482
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3483
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3485
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3489
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3490
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3491
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3492
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3493
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3494
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3495
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3496
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3497
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3498
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3499
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3500
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3501
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3502
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3503
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3504
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3505
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3506
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3507
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3508
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3509
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3510
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3511
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3512
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3513
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834261). 3514
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3516
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7824560). 3517
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3518
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3519
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3522
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7819531). 3523
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3524
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3525
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3528
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3529
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3531
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3532
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3534
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3535
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3536
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3537
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3540
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809328). 3541
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3543
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3544
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3546
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3549
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3550
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3551
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3553
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3554
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3555
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3557
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3558
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3559
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3560
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3563
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3566
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3567
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3569
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3570
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3572
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3575
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3578
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3581
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3582
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3587
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3590
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3593
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3596
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3598
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3599
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3600
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3605
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3606
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3607
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3608
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3609
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3611
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3614
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3617
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3618
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3620
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3621
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3623
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3624
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3625
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3626
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3627
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3629
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3632
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3635
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3636
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3638
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3641
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3643
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3645
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3647
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3649
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3650
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3653
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3655
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3656
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3659
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3661
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3663
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3665
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3667
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3668
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3671
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3672
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3674
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3677
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3679
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3681
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3683
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3684
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3686
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3688
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3690
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3692
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3693
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3694
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3695
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3696
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3698
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3699
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3700
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3701
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3704
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3706
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3707
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3710
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3712
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3713
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3716
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3718
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3720
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3722
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3723
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3724
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3725
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3728
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3729
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3730
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3731
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3734
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3735
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3736
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3737
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3740
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3741
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3742
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3743
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3746
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3747
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3748
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3749
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3752
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3753
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3754
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3755
107. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3757
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3758
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3761
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3762
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3763
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3764
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3767
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3768
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3769
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3770
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3773
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3775
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3776
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3779
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3781
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3782
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3784
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3785
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3788
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3791
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3793
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3794
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3796
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3797
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3799
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3800
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3801
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3802
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3803
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3804
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3805
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3806
124. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3808
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3809
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3810
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3811
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3812
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3813
126. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3814
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3815
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3816
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3817
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3820
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3821
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3824
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3825
129. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3826
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3828
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3829
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3832
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3833
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3836
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3837
132. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3838
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3839
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3840
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3841
133. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3842
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3843
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3844
134. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3845
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3846
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3847
135. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3848
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3849
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3850
136. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3851
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3852
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3853
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3854
137. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3855
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3856
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3857
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3858
138. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3859
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3860
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3861
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3862
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3863
139. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3864
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3865
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3866
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3867
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3868
140. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3869
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3870
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3871
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3872
141. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3873
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3874
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3875
142. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3876
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3877
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3879
143. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3880
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3881
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3882
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3883
144. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3884
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3885
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3886
145. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3887
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3888
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3889
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3890
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3891
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3892
146. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3893
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3894
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3895
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3896
147. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3897
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3898
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3899
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3900
148. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3901
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3902
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3903
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3904
149. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3905
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3906
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3907
150. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3908
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3909
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3910
151. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3912
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3913
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3914
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3915
152. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3916
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3917
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3918
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3919
153. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3920
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3921
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3922
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3923
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3925
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3926
155. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3927
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3928
156. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3930
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3931
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3932
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3937
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3941
159. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3942
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3943
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3944
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3945
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3948
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3950
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3951
162. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3952
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3953
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3957
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3958
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3960
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3961
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3964
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3965
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3967
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3968
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3971
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3972
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3974
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3975
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3977
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3982
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3983
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3987
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3988
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3991
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3994
174. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3995
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3996
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3997
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3998
175. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3999
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4000
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4001
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4002
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4005
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4006
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4009
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4010
178. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 4011
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 4012
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4013
179. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4014
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4015
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4016
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4017
180. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4018
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7835063). 4019
181. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4020
182. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4022
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7820680). 4023
183. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4024
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4025
184. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4026
185. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4028
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4029
186. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4030
187. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4032
188. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4034
189. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4036
190. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4038
191. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4040
192. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4042
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4043
193. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4044
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4045
194. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4046
195. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4048
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4049
196. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4050
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4051
197. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4052
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4053
198. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4054
199. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4056
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4057
200. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4058
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4059
201. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4060
202. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4062
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4063
203. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4064
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4065
204. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4066
205. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4068
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4069
206. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4070
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4071
207. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4072
208. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4074
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4075
209. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4076
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4077
210. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4078
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4079
211. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4080
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4081
212. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4082
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4083
213. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4084
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4085
214. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4086
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4087
215. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4088
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4089
216. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4090
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4091
217. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4092
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4093
218. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4094
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4095
219. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4096
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4097
220. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4098
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4099
221. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4100
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4101
222. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4102
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4103
223. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4104
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4105
224. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4106
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4107
225. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4108
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4109
226. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4110
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4111
227. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4112
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4113
228. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4114
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4115
229. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4116
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4117
230. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4118
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4119
231. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4120
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4121
232. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4122
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4123
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4124
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4125
234. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4126
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4127
235. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4128
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4129
236. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4130
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4131
237. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4132
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4133
238. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4134
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4135
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4137
240. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4138
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4139
241. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4141
242. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4142
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4143
243. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4144
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4145
244. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4146
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4147
245. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4149
246. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4150
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4151
247. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4152
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4153
248. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4154
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4155
249. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4156
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4157
250. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4158
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4159
251. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4160
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4161
252. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4162
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4163
253. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4164
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4165
254. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4166
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4167
255. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4168
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4169
256. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4170
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4171
257. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4172
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4173
258. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4174
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4175
259. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4176
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4177
260. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4178
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4179
261. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4180
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4181
262. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4182
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4183
263. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4184
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4185
264. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4186
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4187
265. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4188
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4189
266. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4190
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4191
267. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4192
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4193
268. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4194
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4195
269. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4196
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4197
270. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4198
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4199
271. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4200
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4201
272. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4202
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4203
273. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4204
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4205
274. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4206
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4207
275. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4208
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4209
276. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4210
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4211
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4212
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4213
278. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4214
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4215
279. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4216
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4217
280. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4218
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4219
281. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4220
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4221
282. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4222
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4223
283. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4224
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4225
284. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4226
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4227
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In

Preprint · April 2023

448 PUBLICATIONS 12,569 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10

(NSHG) S is a Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11

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

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

is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 19

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

called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition criteria holds 21

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

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

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28

(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 30

if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 31

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 33

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 35

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36

conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 43

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 45

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 46

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 47

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 48

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 49

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 53

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 54

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 55

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 56

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 57

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 58

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 59

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 60

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 61

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 62

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 65

rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 66

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 67

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 68

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 69

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 70

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71