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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370074278
New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Eulerian-Type-

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7840206
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
450 PUBLICATIONS 12,895 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles 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 On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2
Of Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s 3
Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEulerian-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
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 114
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 115
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 “Extreme 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 “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 272
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 Extreme 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
Extreme 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 an 294
Extreme 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 Extreme 297
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some 298
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 299
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 300
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 “Extreme 314
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme 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 Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 329
are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” and “Extreme 330
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 331
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 332
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 333
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 334
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 335
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 336
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 337
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 338
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 339
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 340
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 341
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 342
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 343
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”, “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”, 344
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There 345
are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense 346
about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 347
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ 348
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”. The keyword of this research debut in the 349
section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: 350
The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 351
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 352
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 353
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 354
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 355
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 356
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 357
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 358
Research On the Redeemed Ways 359
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 360
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [181],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 361
Set](Ref. [181],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 362
(NSHG)](Ref. [181],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 363
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [181],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [181], 364
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 365
(NSHG)](Ref. [181],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 366
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [181],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 367
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [181],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 368
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [181]. 369
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 370
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 371
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [181],Definition 2.1,p.1). 372
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 373
+
]− 0, 1 [. 374
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [181],Definition 2.2,p.2). 375
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. [181],Definition 376
2.5,p.2). 377
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 378
pair S = (V, E), where 379
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 380
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 381
1, 2, . . . , n); 382
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 383
V; 384
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 385
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 386
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 387
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 388
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 389
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 390
(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 . 391
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 392
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 393
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 394
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 395
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 396
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 397
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 398
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 399
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 400
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 401
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 402
(Ref. [181],Definition 2.7,p.3). 403
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 404
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 405
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 406
characterized as follow-up items. 407
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 408
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 409
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 410
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 411
HyperEdge; 412
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 413
SuperEdge; 414
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 415
SuperHyperEdge. 416
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 417
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 418
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [181], Definition 2.7, p.3). 419
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 420
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 421
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 422
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 423
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 424
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 425
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)). 426
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 427
pair S = (V, E), where 428
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 429
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 430
1, 2, . . . , n); 431
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 432
V; 433
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 434
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 435
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 436
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 437
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 438
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 439
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 440
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 441
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 442
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 443
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 444
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 445
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 446
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 447
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 448
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 449
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 450
(Ref. [181],Definition 2.7,p.3). 451
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 452
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 453
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 454
characterized as follow-up items. 455
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 456
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 457
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 458
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 459
HyperEdge; 460
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 461
SuperEdge; 462
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 463
SuperHyperEdge. 464
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 465
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 466
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 467
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 468
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 469
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 470
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 471
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 472
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 473
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 474
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 475
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 476
given SuperHyperEdges; 477
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 478
SuperHyperEdges; 479
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 480
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 481
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 482
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 483
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 484
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 485
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 486
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 487
common SuperVertex. 488
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 489
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 490
of following conditions hold: 491
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 492
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 493
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 494
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 495
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 496
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 497
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 498
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 499
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 500
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 501
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 502
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. 503
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 504
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 505
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 506
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 507
SuperHyperPath . 508
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 509
(Ref. [181],Definition 5.3,p.7). 510
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 511
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 512
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 513
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 514
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 515
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 516
(NSHE)). (Ref. [181],Definition 5.4,p.7). 517
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 518
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 519
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 520
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 521
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 522
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 523
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 524
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 526
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 527
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 529
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 530
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 531
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 532
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 533
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). 534
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 536
either V 0 or E 0 is called 537
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 538
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 539
criteria holds 540
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 541
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 542
criteria holds 543
∀E 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 544
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 545
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 546
criteria holds 547
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the following 548
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 549
criteria holds 550
∀V 0 ∈ P : P is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 551
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 552
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 556
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). 557
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 559
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 560
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 565
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 566
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 567
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 568
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 569
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 570
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 575
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 576
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 579
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 580
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 586
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 587
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 588
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 589
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 591
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 592
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 593
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 599
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 600
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 601
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 602
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 603
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the 604
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 605
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 606
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 611
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 612
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 613
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 615
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if it’s either of 616
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 621
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 622
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 626
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 632
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 633
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 634
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 635
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 637
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 638
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 639
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 645
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 646
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 647
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 648
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 649
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; and the 650
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 651
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition). 652
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 653
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of 654
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition such that either of the 655
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 656
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 657
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
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
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 658
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 659
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic 660
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition such that either of the 661
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 662
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 663
|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. 664
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 665
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 666
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s a 667
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 668
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 669
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 670
assign to the values. 671
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 672
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 673
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 674
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 675
understandable. 676
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 677
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 678
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 679
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 680
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 681
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 682
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 683
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 684
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 685
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 686
make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly 687
understandable. 688
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s a 689
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 690
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 691
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 692
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 693

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 694
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 695
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As

Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 696
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 697
Forms 698
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 699
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 700
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 701
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 702
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 703
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 704
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 706
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 707
s-independent criteria 708
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 709
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 710
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 711
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Any k-function 713
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 714
2-function Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition like E is called Extreme Variable. 715
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 716
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 717
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 719
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 720
Expectation criteria 721
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 722
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. an Extreme number is called 724
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 725
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 726
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let m and n propose special 727
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 728
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 729
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 730
independently with probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] 731
and H := G[S]. 732
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 733
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
734
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 735
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of 736
n points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 737
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 738
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 739
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 740
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 741
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 742
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 743
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 744
2 3
l < 32n /k . 745
Theorem 4.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 746
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of 747
n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 748
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 749
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 750
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 751
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 752

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 753
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
754
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 755
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 756
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 757
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 758
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 759
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 760
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 761
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 762
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 763
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 764
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 765
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let X be a 766
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 767
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. 768
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 769
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 770
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 771
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 772
Proof. 773
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 774
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. A special 775
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 776
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph in 778
Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 779
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 780
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 781
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme 782
SuperHyperGraph G. 783
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 784
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 785
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 786
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 787
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: 788
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 789
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 790
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 791
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 792
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 793
number at most k. 794
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 795
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 797
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 798
Variance criteria 799
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 an 801
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 802
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let X be an Extreme Variable 804
and let t be a positive real number. Then 805
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
806
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let Xn be an 808
Extreme Variable in a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 809
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 810
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 812
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 813
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 814
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 816
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 817
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 818
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 819
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. As in the proof of related 821
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 822
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 824
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 825
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 826
or 827
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 828
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 830
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 831
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 833
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 834
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 835
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 836
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 837
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 838
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Extreme 840
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 841
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 842
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Let F be a 844
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 845
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 846
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 847
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 849
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.3)
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 850
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 851
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 852
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 853
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 854
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 855
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 856
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 857
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 858
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 859
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 860
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition
= {{V1 }, {V2 }, {V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z.
861
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 864
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 865
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 866
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 867
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 868
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 869

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 870

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 }, {V2 }, {V4 }}.
= 3z.
871
straightforward. 874

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }}.
= 3z.
875



= {{E4 , E1 , E2 }, {E5 , E1 , E2 }}.
= 2z 3 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= 2z 9 .
879


= {{E1 , E4 }, {Ei , Ej }}.
= 6z 2 .
= {{Vi ∈ VEa , Vj ∈ VEb }}.
= z 10 + 4z 9 + z 8 .
883

= {Eii=110 , Eii=2232 }, . . .}.
= 11z 10 .
= {{Vii=122 }}.
= 11z 22 .
887


= {{Eii=110 , E17 , E14 , E13 }}.
= 3z 13 .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= 3z 13 .
891

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



895

= {{Eii=110 , E22 , E23 }}.
= 11z 12 .
= {{Vii=122 }}.
= 11z 22 .
899

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

903

= {{E1 , E6 , E5 , E4 }}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vii=16 }}.
= 3z 6 .
907

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

911

= {{E10 , E1 , E6 , E5 , E4 }}.
= 4z 5 .
= {{Vii=16 }}.
= 4z 6 .
915

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



919

= {{E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }}.
= z5.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }}.
= z6.
923


= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
927

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
931




= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
935

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG \ {Ej }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |{Ei ∈EN SHG \{Ej }}| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG \ {VEj }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |Vi ∈VN SHG \{VEj }| .
939


= {{Ei , Ej }}.
= Ten Choose Two z 2 .
= {{VEi , VEj }}.
X |{V ,V }|
= z Ei Ej .
943

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



947

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG \ {E1 }}}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG \{E1 }}| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG \ {VE1 }}}.
= z {|Vi ∈VN SHG \{VE1 }}| .
951
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 952
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 953
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 954
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 955
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 956
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 957
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 958
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 959
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 960
any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 961
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 962
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 963
an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 964
some of them but not all of them. 965
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 966
is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 967
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 968
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 969
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 970
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 971
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 972
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme 973
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 974
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with the least Extreme 975
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 976
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 977
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 978
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the 979
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is 980
the cardinality of 981

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges
nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Extreme number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme

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

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Eulerian-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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-Eulerian-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 982
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 983
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 984
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 985
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 986
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 987
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 988
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 989
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition decorates the

Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this
Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the

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

no on-quasi-triangle Extreme style amid some amount of its Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an Extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices from
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Extreme amount of Extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The Extreme cardinality of this Extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the Extreme case is occurred in the minimum Extreme situation. To sum
them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Extreme cardinality such that
Contains some Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 990
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 991
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 992
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 993
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

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

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

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 994
Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
995
Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of
the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 996
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 997
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 998
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 999
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 1000
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in some cases but 1001
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 1002
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1003
contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1004
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1005
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 1006
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1007
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1008
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 1009
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1010
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1011
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1012
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1013
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1014
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme 1015
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition where the Extreme completion of the Extreme 1016
incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an Extreme embedded 1017
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and 1018
quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets 1019
only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting 1020
is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme 1021
SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two 1022
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme 1023
style of the embedded Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The interior types of the 1024
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 1025
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1026
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 1027
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 1028
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Thus Extreme 1029
exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 1030
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 1031
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, there’s 1032
the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside 1033
more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. 1034
One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 1035
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 1036
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme 1037
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with the exclusion 1038
of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1039
and with other terms, the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with the inclusion of all 1040
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme 1041
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1042
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1043
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1044
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1045
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other 1046
words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1047
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 1048
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1049
The main definition of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition has two titles. an 1050
Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1051
Extreme R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any 1052
Extreme number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with that 1053
quasi-maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1054
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1055
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1056
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decompositions for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1057
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1058
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme 1059
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, again and more in the operations of collecting all the 1060
Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decompositions acted on the all possible used formations of 1061
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number 1062
is 1063
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1064
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decompositions. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1065
GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1066
and an Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then 1067
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is 1068
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1069
GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1070
technical definition for the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1071
GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1072
poses the upcoming expressions.

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1074
= max zExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1075

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1076
GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1077
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1078

1079

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1080
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1081
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1082
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1083
Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1084
Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” since “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” 1085
happens “Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial 1086
framework and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens 1087
“Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial 1088
framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the 1089
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1090
“Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition”, and 1091
“Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” are up. 1092
Thus, let 1093
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1094
GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1095
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the new terms 1096
are up. 1097
GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1098
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1099
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1100
And with go back to initial structure, 1101
GExtreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1102
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1103

1104

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1105
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if 1106
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1107
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1108
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1109
them. 1110
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1111
are coming up. 1112
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1113
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1114
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1115
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1116
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1117
Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of

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

R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1118
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1119
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1120
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1121
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1122
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

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

Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1123
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1124
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1125
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1126
“Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” 1127
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1128
Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 1129
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition,
are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1130
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

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

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1131
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1132
quasi-R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1133
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1134
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1135
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1136
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1137
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1138
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1139
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1140
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1141
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition with the 1142
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1143
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1144
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1145
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1146
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme 1147
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1148
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1150
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1151
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1152
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1153
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such 1154
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1155
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1156
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1157
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1158
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1159
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1160
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1161
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, 1162
VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1163
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes 1164
only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1165
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1166
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1167
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1168
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1169
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1170
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1171
R-Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and 1172
all exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1173
where there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s 1174
all Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1175
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1176
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1177
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither 1178
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme 1179
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1180
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The Extreme 1181
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1182

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−T ype−P ath−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition . 1183
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1184

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1185
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1186
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1188
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1189
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1190
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1191
non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1192
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is an Extreme 1193
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1194
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1195

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 Extreme 1196
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1197
Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet 1198
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1199

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1200
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1201
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1202

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1203
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1204
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1205
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1206
and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Since it’s 1207
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1209
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1210
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1211
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1212

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition , 1213

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1214
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition , not: 1215

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1216

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 Extreme 1217
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1218
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1219
“Extreme Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition ” 1220
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1221
Extreme ,
is only and only 1223

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1224
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1225
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1226
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1227
SuperHyperClasses. 1228
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1229

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
Proof. Let 1230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1231
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1232
There’s a new way to redefine as 1233
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 1234
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1235
The latter is straightforward. 1236
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1237
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1238
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1239
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1240
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
Then 1241

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG \ {Ej }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |{Ei ∈EN SHG \{Ej }}| .
= {{Vi ∈ VN SHG \ {VEj }}}.
= |EN SHG |z |Vi ∈VN SHG \{VEj }| .
Proof. Let 1242
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1243
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1244

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1249
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1250
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme 1251
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1253

= {{Ei , Ej }}.
= |EN SHG |Choose Two z 2 .
= {{VEi , VEj }}.
X |{V ,V }|
= z Ei Ej .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1254
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1255
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1256
a new way to redefine as 1257

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1261
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1262
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1263
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1264
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1265
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1266
Then 1267

= {{Ei ∈ PNmin
SHG }}.
X min
= z |{Ei ∈PN SHG }| .
= {{VEi ∈PNmin
SHG
}}.
X |{V min }|
= z Ei ∈PN SHG .
Proof. Let 1268
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
1269
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1270

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1274
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1275
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition could be applied. 1276
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1277
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition taken from a connected Extreme 1279
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1280
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.11)
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1281
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1283
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1284
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1285
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1286
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1287
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1288
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1289
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1290

= {{Ei ∈ PNmin
SHG }}.
X min
= z |{Ei ∈PN SHG }| .
= {{VEi ∈PNmin
SHG
}}.
X |{V min }|
= z Ei ∈PN SHG .
Proof. Let 1291
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
1292
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1294

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1297
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1298
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1300
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1302
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1303
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1306
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1307
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1308
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1309
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1310
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1311
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1313
Then, 1314

= {{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 1315
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1316
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1318

Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.15)
The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1321
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1322
The unique embedded SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition proposes some longest 1324
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1325
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1327
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1328
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1329
of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme 1330
SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1331
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1332
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1333
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, and 1334
the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1335
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is 1336
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1337
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then 1338
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian − T ype − P ath − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − T ype − P ath − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − T ype − P ath − Decomposition
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−T ype−P ath−Decomposition. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1339
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1340
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1341
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1342
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and 1343
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition coincide. 1344
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1346
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1347
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1349
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1350
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1352
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 1353
is its SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and reversely. 1354
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme 1355
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1356
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1357
letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is its 1358
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and reversely. 1359
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1360
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1361
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1362
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1363
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1364
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1368
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1369
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1371
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1372
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined. 1373
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1374
its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1375
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme 1379
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1380
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1382
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1383
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1384
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1385
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1386
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1387
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1388
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1389
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1390
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1391
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1392
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1393
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1394
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1395
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1396
independent SuperHyperSet is 1397
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1398
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1399
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1400
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1401
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1402
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1403
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1404
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1405
is a maximal 1406
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1407
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1408
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1409
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1410
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1411
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1412
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1413
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1414
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1415
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1416
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1417
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1418
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1419
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1420
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1421
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1422
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1424
the number of 1425
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1426
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1427
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1428
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1429
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1430
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1431
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1432
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1433
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1435
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1436
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1437
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1438
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1439
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1440
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1441
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1442
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1445
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1446
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1447
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1448
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1452
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1453
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1454
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1458
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1459
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1460
is a 1461
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1465
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1466
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1467
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1470
number of 1471
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1475
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1476
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1477
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1479
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1480
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1481
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1483
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1484
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1488
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1489
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1490
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1491
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1492
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1493
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1494
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1495
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1499
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1501
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1503
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1504
setting of dual 1505
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1509
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1510
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1511
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1513
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1515
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1516
dual 1517
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1521
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1522
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1523
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1526
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1527
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1528
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1534
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1536
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1537
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1538
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1539
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1540
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1541
such that 1542
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1543
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1544
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1545
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, then 1546
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition set; 1547
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1548
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1549
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1550
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1551
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1552
connected. Then 1553
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1554
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1555
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1556
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1557
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1559
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1560
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1561
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1562
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1563
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1564
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1566
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1567
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1568
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1569
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1570
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1571
Then 1572
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1573
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1575
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1576
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1577
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1578
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1580
Then 1581
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1582
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1584
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1585
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1586
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1588
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1589
(ii) Γ = 1; 1590
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1591
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1592
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1594
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1595
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1596
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1597
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1598
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1599
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1600
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1601
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1602
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1604
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1605
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1606
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1608
bnc
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1611
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

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

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1629
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1630
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1632
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1633
SuperHyperSet. Then 1634
bnc
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1636
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1637
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

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

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1682
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

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

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

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1695
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1697
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition; 1698
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1700
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1702
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1703
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1704
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1706
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1708
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1711
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1713
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1714
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1715
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1717
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1719
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1722
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1723
Recognition 1724
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1725
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease is 1726
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1727
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1728
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some Extreme 1729
treatments for this Extreme disease. 1730
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1731
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1732
long-term Extreme function. 1733
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme model 1734
[it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the move 1735
from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer 1736
hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and 1737
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event 1738
leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to 1739
have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1740
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1741
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1742
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1743
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1744
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1746
find either the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition or the Extreme 1747
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1748
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1749
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1750
SuperHyperModel 1751
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1752
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1753
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1754
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1755
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1756
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1757
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1758
the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1759
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1760
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1761
SuperHyperModel 1762
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1763
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1764
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1765
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1766
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous result, 1767
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1768
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1769
is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. 1770
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1771
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1772
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1773
The SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme 1774
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s 1775
Recognitions”. 1776
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1777
recognitions? 1778
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1779
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition? 1780
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1781
compute them? 1782
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1783
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition? 1784
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme 1785
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1786
and they’re based on SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, are there else? 1787
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1788
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1789
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1790
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1791
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1792
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1793
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1794
highlighted. 1795
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1796
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1797
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1798
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1799
Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1800
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1801
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 1802
Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions 1803
where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on 1804
the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1805
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, 1806
are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1807
SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition. The 1808
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this 1809
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the 1810
results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1811
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of 1812
this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups 1813
of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1814
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1815
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1816
called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1817
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1818
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition
3. Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1819
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1820
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1821
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1822
Forms 1823
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1824
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1825
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1826
V 0 or E 0 is called 1827
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1828
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1829
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1830
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1831
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1832
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1833
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1834
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1835
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1836
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1837
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1838
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1839
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1840
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1841
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1843
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1844
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1845
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1846
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1847
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1848
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1849
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1851
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1852
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1853
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1854
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1855
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1856
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1857
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1858
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1859
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1860
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1862
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1863
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1864
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1865
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1866
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1867
Extreme coefficient; 1868
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1869
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1879
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1886
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1887
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1891
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1893
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1894
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1895
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1899
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1900
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1904
Extreme coefficient. 1913
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1917
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1918
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1919
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1920
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1921
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1923
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1926
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1927
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1928
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1929
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1930
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1931


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1974
Then 1975
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1976
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1980
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1984
Then 1986
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1987
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1995
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1996
Then 1997
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1998
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2008
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2009
ESHB : (V, E). Then 2010
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2011
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 2016
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2017
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2020
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2021
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2029

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2032
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 2033

P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2049
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2050
Then, 2052
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2053
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2054
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2055

∃!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 2060
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2061
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2063
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2064
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 2065
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2066
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2067
Forms 2069
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2070
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 2074
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2075
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2076
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2077
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2079
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2080
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2081
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2082
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2084
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2085
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2086
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2089
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2090
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2091
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2092
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2093
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2094
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2095
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2096
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2098
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2102
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2103
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2104
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2105
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2111
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2113
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2123
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2127
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2128
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2129
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2130
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2134
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2136
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2137
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2147
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2160
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2161
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2166
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2168
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2174


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2218
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2219
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2223
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2227
Then 2229

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

.
Proof. Let 2230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2238
Then 2240
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2241

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2251
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2254
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 2259
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2260
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2263
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2272

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2275
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2276
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2277

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2280
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2281
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2293
Then, 2295

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

.
Proof. Let 2296
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2297

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2301
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2302
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2303
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2304
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2309
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2310
Forms 2312
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2313
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2317
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2318
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2319
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2320
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2322
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2323
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2324
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2325
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2327
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2328
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2329
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2330
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2333
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2335
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2339
SuperHyperPerfect; 2340
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2341
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2343
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2347
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2348
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2349
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2350
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2356
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2358
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2368
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2369
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2375
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2376
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2377
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2380
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2382
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2383
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2384
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2393
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2406
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2412
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2420


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2464
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2465
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2469
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2473
Then 2475
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2476
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2484
Then 2486
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2487

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2497
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2500
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 2505
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2506
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2507
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2508
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2509
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2518

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2521
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2522

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2526
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2527
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2528
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2539
Then, 2541
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2542
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2543

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2547
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2548
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2549
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2550
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2555
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2556
Forms 2558
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2559
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2563
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2564
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2565
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2566
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2568
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2569
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2570
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2571
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2573
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2574
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2575
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2576
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2579
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2581
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2585
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2586
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2588
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2592
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2593
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2594
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2595
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2601
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2603
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2613
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2617
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2618
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2619
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2620
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2624
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2626
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2627
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2637
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2650
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2656
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2664


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2708
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2709
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2713
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2717
Then 2719
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2720
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2728
Then 2730
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2731
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2741
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2744
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2749
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2750
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2753
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2762

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2765
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2766
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2767

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2770
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2771
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2783
Then, 2785
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2786
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2787

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2791
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2792
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2793
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2794
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2799
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2800
Forms 2802
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2803
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2807
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2808
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2809
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2810
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2812
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2813
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2814
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2815
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2817
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2818
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2819
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2820
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2823
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2825
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2826
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2827
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2828
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2830
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2831
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2834
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2835
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2836
SuperHyperConnected; 2838
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2839
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2840
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2842
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2847
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2849
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2850
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2859
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2863
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2864
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2866
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2867
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2871
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2872
SuperHyperConnected; 2874
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2875
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2876
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2877
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2878
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2885
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2886
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2898
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2899
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2900
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2901
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2902
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2903
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2904
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2905
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2908
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2909
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2910
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2911
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2913


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2977
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2978
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2982
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2986
Then 2988
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2989
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2992
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2997
Then 2999
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 3000
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3010
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 3013
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3018
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3019
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3022
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 3023
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3031
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 3034
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3035

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3039
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3040
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3052
Then, 3054
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3055
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3056

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3060
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3061
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3062
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3063
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3069
17 Background 3070
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3071
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3072
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3073
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3074
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3075
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3076
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3077
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3078
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3079
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3080
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3081
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3082
results based on initial background. 3083
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3084
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3085
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3086
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3087
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3088
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3089
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3090
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3091
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3092
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3093
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3094
SuperHyperNumbers. 3095
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3096
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3097
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3098
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3099
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3100
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3101
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3102
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3103
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3104
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3105
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3106
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3107
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3108
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3109
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3110
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3111
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3112
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3113
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3114
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3115
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3116
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3117
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3118
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3119
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3120
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3121
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3122
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3123
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3124
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3125
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3126
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3127
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3128
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3129
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3130
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3131
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3132
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3133
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3134
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3135
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3136
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3137
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3138
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3139
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3140
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3141
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3142
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3143
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3144
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3145
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3146
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3147
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3148
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3149
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3150
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3151
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3152
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3153
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3154
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3155
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3156
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3157
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3158
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [151] by Henry 3159
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3160
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3161
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [152] by Henry Garrett 3162
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3163
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3164
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [153] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3165
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3166
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [154] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3168
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3169
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [157] by 3170
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3171
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3172
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [158] by Henry 3173
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3174
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3175
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [161] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3176
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3177
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [164] by Henry 3178
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3179
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3180
in Ref. [165] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3181
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3182
Ref. [166] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3183
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3184
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [167] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3185
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3186
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [168] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3187
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3188
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [169] by Henry Garrett 3189
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3190
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [180] by Henry 3191
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3192
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3193
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [181] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–181], there 3194
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3195
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [182–284]. 3196
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3197
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [285, 286]. 3198
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3199
proposed as book in Ref. [273] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3200
Scholar and has more than 4276 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3201
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3202
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3203
theory. 3204
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3205
proposed as book in Ref. [274] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3206
Scholar and has more than 5274 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3207
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3208
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3209
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3210
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3211
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3212
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3213
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3214
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3215
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–181] alongside scientific 3216
research books at [182–284]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3217
of high readers, 4276 and 5274 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [285, 286]. 3218
References 3219
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3220
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3221
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3222
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3223
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3224
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3225
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3226
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3227
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3228
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3229
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3230
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3231
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3232
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3233
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3234
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3235
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3236
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3237
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3238
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3239
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3240
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3241
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3242
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3243
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3244
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3245
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3246
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3247
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3248
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3249
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3250
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3251
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3252
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3253
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3254
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3255
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3256
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3257
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3258
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3259
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3260
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3261
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3262
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3263
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3264
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3265
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3266
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3267
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3268
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3269
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3270
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3271
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3272
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3273
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3274
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3275
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3276
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3277
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3278
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3279
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3280
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3281
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3282
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3283
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3284
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3285
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3286
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3287
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3288
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3289
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3290
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3291
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3292
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3293
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3295
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3299
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3300
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3301
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3302
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3303
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3304
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3305
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3306
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3307
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3308
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3309
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3310
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3311
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3312
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3313
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3314
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3315
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3316
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3317
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3318
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3319
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3320
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3321
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3322
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3323
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7840206). 3324
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3326
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3327
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3328
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3329
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3332
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7824560). 3333
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3334
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3335
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3338
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7819531). 3339
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3341
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3344
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3345
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3347
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3348
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3350
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3351
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3352
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3353
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3356
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809328). 3357
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3359
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3360
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3362
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3365
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3366
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3367
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3369
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3370
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3371
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3373
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3374
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3375
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3376
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3379
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3382
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3383
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3385
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3386
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3388
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3391
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3394
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3397
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3398
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3400
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3403
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3406
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3409
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3412
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3414
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3415
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3416
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3418
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3421
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3422
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3423
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3424
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3425
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3427
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3430
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3433
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3434
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3436
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3437
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3439
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3440
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3441
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3442
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3443
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3445
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3448
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3451
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3452
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3454
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3457
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3459
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3461
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3463
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3465
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3466
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3469
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3471
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3472
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3475
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3477
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3479
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3481
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3483
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3484
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3487
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3488
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3490
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3493
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3495
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3499
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3500
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3502
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3504
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3506
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3508
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3509
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3510
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3511
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3512
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3514
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3515
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3516
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3517
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3520
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3522
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3523
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3526
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3528
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3529
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3532
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3534
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3536
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3538
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3539
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3540
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3541
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3544
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3545
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3546
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3547
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3550
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3551
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3552
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3556
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3557
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3558
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3562
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3563
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3564
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3565
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3568
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3569
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3570
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3571
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3573
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3574
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3577
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3578
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3579
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3580
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3583
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3584
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3585
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3586
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3589
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3591
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3592
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3595
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3597
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3598
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3600
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3601
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3604
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3607
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3609
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3610
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3612
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3613
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3615
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3616
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3617
124. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3618
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3619
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3620
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3621
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3622
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3624
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3625
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3626
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3627
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3628
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3629
128. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3630
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3631
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3632
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3633
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3636
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3637
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3640
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3641
131. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3642
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3644
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3645
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3648
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3649
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3652
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3653
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3654
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3655
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3656
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3657
135. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3658
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3659
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3660
136. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3661
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3662
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3663
137. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3664
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3665
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3666
138. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3667
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3668
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3669
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3670
139. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3671
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3672
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3673
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3674
140. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3675
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3676
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3677
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3678
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3679
141. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3680
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3681
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3682
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3683
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3684
142. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3685
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3686
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3687
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3688
143. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3689
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3690
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3691
144. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3692
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3693
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3695
145. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3696
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3697
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3698
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3699
146. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3700
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3701
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3702
147. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3703
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3704
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3705
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3706
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3707
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3708
148. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3709
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3710
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3711
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3712
149. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3713
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3714
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3715
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3716
150. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3717
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3718
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3719
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3720
151. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3721
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3722
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3723
152. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3724
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3725
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3726
153. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3728
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3729
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3730
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3731
154. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3732
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3733
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3734
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3735
155. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3736
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3737
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3738
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3739
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3741
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3742
157. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3743
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3744
158. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3746
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3747
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3748
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3753
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3757
161. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3758
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3759
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3760
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3761
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3764
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3766
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3767
164. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3768
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3769
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3773
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3774
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3776
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3777
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3780
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3781
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3783
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3784
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3787
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3788
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3790
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3791
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3793
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3798
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3799
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3803
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3804
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3807
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3810
176. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3811
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3812
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3813
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3814
177. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3815
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3816
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3817
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3818
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3821
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3822
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3825
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3826
180. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3827
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 3828
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3829
181. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3830
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3831
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3832
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3833
182. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3834
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7835063). 3835
183. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3836
184. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3838
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7820680). 3839
185. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3840
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3841
186. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3842
187. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3844
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3845
188. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3846
189. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3848
190. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3850
191. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3852
192. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3854
193. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3856
194. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3858
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3859
195. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3860
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3861
196. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3862
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3864
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3865
198. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3866
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3867
199. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3868
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3869
200. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3870
201. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3872
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3873
202. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3874
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3875
203. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3876
204. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3878
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3879
205. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3880
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3881
206. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3882
207. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3884
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3885
208. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3886
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3887
209. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3888
210. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3890
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3891
211. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3892
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3893
212. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3894
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3895
213. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3896
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3897
214. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3898
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3899
215. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3900
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3901
216. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3902
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3903
217. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3904
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3905
218. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3906
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3907
219. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3908
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3909
220. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3910
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3911
221. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3912
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3913
222. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3914
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3915
223. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3916
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3917
224. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3918
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3919
225. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3920
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3921
226. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3922
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3923
227. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3924
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3925
228. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3926
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3927
229. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3928
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3929
230. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3930
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3931
231. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3932
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3933
232. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3934
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3935
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3936
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3937
234. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3938
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3939
235. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3940
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3941
236. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3942
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3943
237. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3945
238. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3946
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3947
239. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3948
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3949
240. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3950
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3951
241. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3953
242. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3955
243. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3956
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3957
244. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3958
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3959
245. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3960
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3961
246. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3962
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3963
247. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3964
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3965
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3966
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3967
249. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3968
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3969
250. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3970
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3971
251. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3972
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3973
252. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3974
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3975
253. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3976
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3977
254. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3978
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3979
255. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3980
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3981
256. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3982
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3983
257. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3984
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3985
258. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3986
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3987
259. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3988
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3989
260. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3990
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3991
261. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3992
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3993
262. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3994
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3995
263. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3996
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3997
264. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3998
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3999
265. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4000
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4001
266. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4002
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4003
267. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4004
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4005
268. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4006
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4007
269. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4008
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4009
270. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4010
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4011
271. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4012
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4013
272. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4014
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4015
273. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4016
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4017
274. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4018
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4019
275. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4020
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4021
276. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4022
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4023
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4024
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4025
278. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4027
279. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4028
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4029
280. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4030
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4031
281. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4032
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4033
282. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4034
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4035
283. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4036
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4037
284. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4038
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4039
285. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4040
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4041
286. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4042
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4043
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

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

Preprint · April 2023

450 PUBLICATIONS 12,895 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2

Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperEulerian-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