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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370163876
New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In

Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7853922
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
456 PUBLICATIONS 13,757 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 21 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 2
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the all number of SuperHyperEdges;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 16
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 19
∀Va ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 21
∀Va ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 23
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 24
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) 25
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 26
pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s 28
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 29
re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and 30
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 31
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 32
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 33
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 34
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; a 35
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 36
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 37
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and 38
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 39
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 41
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 42
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 43
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 44
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 46
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 47
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 48
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 49
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 50
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; and 51
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 52
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 53
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 56
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 57
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 58
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 59
conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 61
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 62
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 63
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 66
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 67
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 68
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; a 69
Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 70
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 73
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 76
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 77
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 78
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 81
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 82
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 83
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; and 85
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 87
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 91
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 92
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 93
cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 94
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 95
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this 96
scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 97
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Two different 98
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and 99
the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 100
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 101
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 102
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 103
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 104
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 105
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 106
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 107
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 108
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 109
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 110
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 111
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 112
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 113
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 114
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 115
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 116
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 117
δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 118
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 119
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 120
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 121
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 122
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is a 123
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 124
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 125
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 126
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 127
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 128
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 129
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 130
version of a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 131
make a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut more understandable. For the sake of having 132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 133
“SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 134
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 135
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 136
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if 137
the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 138
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 139
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 140
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 141
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 142
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 143
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 144
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 145
based on a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 146
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 147
have all SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut until the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, then it’s officially 148
called a “SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut . 149
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a 150
“SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment 151
since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 152
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 153
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic 154
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut ”. 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 158
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a 159
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” 160
if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of 161
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a 162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 163
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 164
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 165
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 166
are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut”, 167
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 168
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 169
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” where it’s 170
the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 171
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 172
.] SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 173
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 174
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 175
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 176
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s only one 177
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 178
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 179
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 180
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 181
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 182
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 183
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 184
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 185
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 186
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 187
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 188
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 189
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 190
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 191
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 192
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 193
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 194
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 195
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 196
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 197
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 198
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 199
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 200
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 201
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 202
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 203
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 204
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 205
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 206
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 207
either the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut or the strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 208
in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 209
called SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and the strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, called 210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, some general results are introduced. Beyond 211
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 212
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 213
any style of a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 214
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 215
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 216
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 217
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 218
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Cancer’s 219
Neutrosophic Recognition 220
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 221
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 222
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 223
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 224
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 225
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 226
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 227
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 228
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 229
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 230
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 231
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 232
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 233
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 234
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 235
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 236
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 237
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 238
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 239
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 240
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 241
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 242
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 243
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 244
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 245
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 246
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 247
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 248
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 249
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 250
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 251
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 252
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 253
formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 254
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 255
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 256
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 257
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 258
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 259
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 260
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 261
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 262
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 263
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 264
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 265
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 266
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 267
either the optimal SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut or the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 268
in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that 269
in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 270
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 271
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t any 272
formation of any SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 273
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 274
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 275
find the “ amount of SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” of either individual of cells or the groups 276
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 277
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 278
cells? 279
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 280
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 281
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 282
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 283
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” and “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” on 284
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 285
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 286
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 287
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 288
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 289
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 290
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 291
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 292
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 293
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 294
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 295
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 296
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and 297
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, are figured out in sections “ 298
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” and “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut”. In the sense of 299
tackling on getting results and in Eulerian-Cycle-Cut to make sense about continuing the 300
research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are 301
introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out 302
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 303
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there 304
are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 305
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 306
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The 307
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 308
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 309
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 310
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 311
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut”, “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut”, “Results on 312
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 313
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 314
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 315
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut”. 316
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 317
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 318
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 319
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 320
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 321
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 322
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 323
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 324
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 325
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 326
Research On the Redeemed Ways 327
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 328
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [184],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 329
Set](Ref. [184],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 330
(NSHG)](Ref. [184],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 331
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [184],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [184], 332
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 333
(NSHG)](Ref. [184],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 334
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [184],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 335
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [184],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 336
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [184]. 337
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 338
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 339
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [184],Definition 2.1,p.1). 340
Let X be a Eulerian-Cycle-Cut of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by

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

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 341
+
]− 0, 1 [. 342
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [184],Definition 2.2,p.2). 343
Let X be a Eulerian-Cycle-Cut of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by

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

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

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [184],Definition 344
2.5,p.2). 345
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 346
pair S = (V, E), where 347
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 348
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 349
1, 2, . . . , n); 350
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 351
V; 352
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 353
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 354
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 355
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 356
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 357
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 358
(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 . 359
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 360
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 361
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 362
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 363
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 364
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 365
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 366
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 367
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 368
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 369
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 370
(Ref. [184],Definition 2.7,p.3). 371
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 372
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 373
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 374
characterized as follow-up items. 375
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 376
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 377
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 378
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 379
HyperEdge; 380
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 381
SuperEdge; 382
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 383
SuperHyperEdge. 384
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 385
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 386
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [184], Definition 2.7, p.3). 387
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 388
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 389
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 390
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 391
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 392
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 393
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)). 394
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 395
pair S = (V, E), where 396
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 397
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 398
1, 2, . . . , n); 399
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 400
V; 401
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 402
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 403
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 404
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 405
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 406
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 407
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 408
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 409
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 410
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 412
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 413
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 414
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 415
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 416
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 417
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 418
(Ref. [184],Definition 2.7,p.3). 419
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 420
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 421
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 422
characterized as follow-up items. 423
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 424
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 425
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 426
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 427
HyperEdge; 428
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 429
SuperEdge; 430
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 431
SuperHyperEdge. 432
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 433
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 434
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 435
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 436
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 437
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 438
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 439
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 440
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 441
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 442
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 443
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 444
given SuperHyperEdges; 445
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 446
SuperHyperEdges; 447
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 448
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 449
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 450
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 451
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 452
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 453
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 454
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 455
common SuperVertex. 456
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 457
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 458
of following conditions hold: 459
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 460
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 461
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 462
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 468
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 469
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 470
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. 471
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 472
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 473
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 474
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 475
SuperHyperPath . 476
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 477
(Ref. [184],Definition 5.3,p.7). 478
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 479
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 480
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 481
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 482
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 483
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 484
(NSHE)). (Ref. [184],Definition 5.4,p.7). 485
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 486
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 487
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 488
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 489
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 490
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 491
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 492
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 494
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 495
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 497
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 498
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 499
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 500
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 501
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut). 502
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 504
either V 0 or E 0 is called 505
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 506
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 507
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 508
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 509
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 510
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 511
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 512
∀Va ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 513
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 514
∀Va ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 515
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 516
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 517
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 518
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 519
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut). 520
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 522
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 523
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 526
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 527
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 528
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 529
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 530
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 531
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 532
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 535
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 536
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 537
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 539
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 541
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 545
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 546
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 547
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 548
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 549
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 550
Extreme coefficient; 551
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 552
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 555
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 556
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 557
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 558
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 559
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 560
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; and the Neutrosophic 561
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 562
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 563
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 566
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 568
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 569
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 572
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 575
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 576
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 577
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 579
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 581
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 585
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 586
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 587
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 588
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 590
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 592
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 595
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 596
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 597
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 598
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 599
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 600
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; and the Neutrosophic 601
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 602
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut). 603
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 604
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 605
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut such that either of the following expressions hold for the 606
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 607
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 608
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 609
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of 610
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut such that either of the following 611
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 612
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 613
|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. 614
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 615
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 616
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to 617
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 618
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 619
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 620
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 621
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 622
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 623
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 624
understandable. 625
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 626
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 627
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 628
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 629
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 630
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 631
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 632
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 633
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 634
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 635
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut more Neutrosophicly understandable. 636

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to 637
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut”. The 638
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 639
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 640
assign to the values. 641
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 642
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if the Table (3) holds. 643
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The Eulerian-Cycle-Cut 644
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 645
Forms 646
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 647
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 648
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 649
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 650
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 651
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 652
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 654
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 655
s-independent criteria 656
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. 657
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 658
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 659
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Any k-function Eulerian-Cycle-Cut like E is called 661
Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Eulerian-Cycle-Cut like E is called 662
Extreme Variable. 663
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 664
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 665
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 667
called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 668
Expectation criteria 669
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 670
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. an Extreme number is called Extreme 672
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 673
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). 674
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let m and n propose special 675
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Then with m ≥ 4n, 676
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 677
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 678
independently with probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 679
H := G[S]. 680
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: 681
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
682
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 683
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points 684
in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane passing 685
through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 686
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 687
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 688
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 689
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 690
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 691
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 692
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 693
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points 695
in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit SuperHyperDistance. 696
Then k < 5n4/3 . 697
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 698
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Draw a SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle 699
around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number P of these 700
SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0n−1 ni = n and 701

1
P n−1
k=2 i=0 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with 702
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 703
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 704
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 705
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 706
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 707
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 708
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 709
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 710
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 711
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 712
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 713
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be a nonnegative 714
Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 715
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. 716
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 717
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let Xn be a nonnegative 718
integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 719
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 720
Proof. 721
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 722
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. A special 723
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 724
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. 726
Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, 727
where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 728
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 729
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 730
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 731
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 732
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 733
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 734
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: 735
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 736
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 737
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 738
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 739
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 740
number at most k. 741
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 742
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 744
called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance 745
criteria 746
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be an Extreme 748
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 749
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t be a 751
positive real number. Then 752
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
753
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let Xn be an Extreme 755
Variable in a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 756
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 757
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 759
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 760
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 761
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set 763
f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 764
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 765
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. As in the proof of related Theorem, the result 767
is straightforward. 768
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f 770
and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 771
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 772
or 773
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 774
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 776
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 777
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a monotone property of 779
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 780
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 781
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 782
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 783
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 784
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let F be a fixed Extreme SuperHyperGraph. 786
Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a copy of F as an 787
Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 788
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Let F be a nonempty 790
balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 791
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 792
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 793
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 795
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.3)
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 796
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 797
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 798
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 799
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 800
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 801
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 802
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 803
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 804
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 805
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 806
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
807
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 810
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 811
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 812
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 813
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 814
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 815

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 816

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z 5 + z 3 + z.
817
straightforward. 820

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
821



= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
825


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
829

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
833


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
837

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



841

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
845

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

849

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
853

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

857

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
861

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



865

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
869


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
873

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
877




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
881

= {Eii=112 }.
X
= z |Ei | .
Ei
i=112

= {V Eii=112 }.
X
= z |Vi | .
V Ei
i=112

885

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
889

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {V1 , V2 , {R}, {M6 }, {L6 }, {F }, {P }, {J}, {M }, V3 , V1 }.
= 2z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.

893

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
897
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 898
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut 899
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 900
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 901
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 902
them. 903
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 904
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 905
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 906
any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 907
of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 908


SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 909
an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 910
them but not all of them. 911
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-Cycle-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is at least 912
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 913
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 914
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 915
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut in 916
some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the 917
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 918
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. 919
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut has, the least Extreme cardinality, the
lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut with the least Extreme cardinality, the 920
lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 921
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 922
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 923
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Cut
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 924
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is the cardinality 925
of 926
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut
since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices
where amount refers to the Extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges)
more than one to form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of
SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound
for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. It’s the
contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to deny
this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and cycle
as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes, are
well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the examples-classes
and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 927
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 928
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 929
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 930
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 931
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 932
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 933
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 934
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut decorates the Extreme

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 935
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 936
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 937
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 938
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-Cycle-Cut.
Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an Extreme
style-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge

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

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

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 939
Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
940
Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is

fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended SuperHyperVertices
but in an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not
unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is at 941
least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 942
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 943
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 944
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 945
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge 946
with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 947
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. 948
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 949
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 950
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 951
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 952
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 953
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 954
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 955
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 956
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 957
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 958
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut where 959
the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an 960
Extreme embedded R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 961
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 962
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 963
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 964
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 965
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 966
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. The interior types of the 967
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 968
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 969
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 970
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 971
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Thus Extreme exterior 972
SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 973
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 974
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, there’s the usage 975
of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more 976
than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 977
Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 978
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 979
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme 980
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. The Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 981
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, 982
the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut with the inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 983
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. To sum them up, 984
in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 985
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of 986
the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme 987
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 988
all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge 989
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme 990
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 991
all of them. 992
The main definition of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut has two titles. an Extreme 993
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 994
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 995
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut with that quasi-maximum Extreme 996
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 997
there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme 998
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 999
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cuts for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded 1000
maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut ends up but this essence 1001
starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, again and more in the 1002
operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cuts acted on the all possible 1003
used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. 1004
This Extreme number is 1005
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cuts. Let 1006
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut be an Extreme 1007
number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1008
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is re-formalized 1009
and redefined as follows. 1010
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1011
technical definition for the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1012
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut =
{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 1013
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut poses the upcoming expressions. 1014
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1015
= maxzExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1016

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1017
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1018
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1019
= max zExtreme Number

1020

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1021
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1022
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1023
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1024
Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1025
Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut” since “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut” happens “Extreme 1026
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background 1027
but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut” in 1028
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 1029
there are some ambiguities about the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To 1030
get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme 1031
Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut”, and “Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut” are up. 1032
Thus, let 1033
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1034
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1035
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut and the new terms are up. 1036
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1037
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1038
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1039
And with go back to initial structure, 1040
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1041
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1042
= max zExtreme Number

1043

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1044
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut if for any of 1045
them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme 1046
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme 1047
exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1048
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1049
are coming up. 1050
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

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

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1051
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1052
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1053
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1054
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1055
Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

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

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1056
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1057
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1058
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1059
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Since it’s 1060
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-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t only less than two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1061
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1062
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1063
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1064
“Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut” 1065
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1066
Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, 1067
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-Cycle-Cut amid those obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1068
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1069
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut if 1070
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1071
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1072
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1073
them. 1074
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1075
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1076
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1077
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1078
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1079
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut with the least 1080
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1081
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1082
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1083
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1084
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1085
Since it doesn’t have 1086
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1088
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1089
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1090
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1091
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that 1092
there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1093
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1094
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1095
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1096
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1097
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1098
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1099
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, VESHE is up. 1100
The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, 1101
VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme 1102
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1103
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1104
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1105
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1106
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1107
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1108
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Cut 1109
only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1110
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1111
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1112
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1113
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1114
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1115
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Cycle-Cut, is up. There’s neither empty 1116
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1117
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1118
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1119
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1120
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Cut = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. The Extreme 1121
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1122
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1123
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1124
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1126
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1127
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1128
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1129
non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1130
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1131
includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1132
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1133
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 1134
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1135
Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1136
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1137
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 Eulerian-Cycle-Cut . 1138
Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1139
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1140
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1141
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1142
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1143
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut and it’s 1144
an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut. Since it’s 1145
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1147
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1148
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1149
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1150
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut , 1151
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 Eulerian-Cycle-Cut , 1152
not: 1153
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1154
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 1155
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1156
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1157
“Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut ” 1158
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1159
Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Cut , 1160
is only and only 1161
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1162
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1163
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1164
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1165
SuperHyperClasses. 1166
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1167

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1168
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1169
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1170
There’s a new way to redefine as 1171
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 1172
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. The latter 1173
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1175
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1176
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1177
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1178
Then 1179

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei ∈EN SHG | .
= {VEi ∈EN SHG }.
X
= z |VEi ∈EN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1180
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1181
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1182

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1187
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1188
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1189
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1190

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1191
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1192
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1193
a new way to redefine as 1194

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1198
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1199
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1200
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1201
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1202
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1203
Then 1204

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1205
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
1206
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). 1207

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the 1211
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1212
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.11)
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus 1213
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1214
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut taken from a connected Extreme 1215
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1216
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1217
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1218
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1219
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1220
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1221
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1222
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1223
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1224
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1225
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1226

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1227
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
1228
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 1230

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the 1233
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1234
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 1235
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1236
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1237
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1238
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1241
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1242
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1243
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1244
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1245
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1246
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1247
Then, 1248

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1249
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1250
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1252

is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the notion 1255
of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut could 1256
be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut proposes some longest 1257
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1258
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1260
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1261
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1262
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1263
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1264
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1265
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1266
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and the Extreme 1267
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, some general results are introduced. 1268
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is “redefined” on 1269
the positions of the alphabets. 1270
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1271
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Cut =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Cutof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Cut
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−Cycle−Cut. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1272
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1273
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1274
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1275
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and 1276
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut coincide. 1277
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an 1279
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1280
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1282
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1283
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1284
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is its 1285
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and reversely. 1286
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 1287
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1288
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is its 1289
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and reversely. 1290
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1291
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut isn’t 1292
well-defined. 1293
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1294
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1295
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1296
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1298
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1299
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1300
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1301
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is 1302
well-defined. 1303
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1304
its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1305
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined. 1306
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1308
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1309
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined. 1310
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1311
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1312
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1313
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1314
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1315
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1316
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1317
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1318
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1319
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1320
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1321
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1322
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1323
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1324
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1325
independent SuperHyperSet is 1326
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1327
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1328
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1329
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1330
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1331
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1332
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1333
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1334
maximal 1335
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1336
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1337
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1338
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1339
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1340
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1341
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1342
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1343
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1344
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1345
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1346
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1347
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1348
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1349
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1350
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1351
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then the number 1353
of 1354
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1355
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1356
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1357
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1358
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1359
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1360
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1361
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1362
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1364
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1365
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1366
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1367
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1368
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1369
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1370
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1371
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1374
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1375
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1376
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1377
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1381
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1382
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1383
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1386
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1387
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1388
is a 1389
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1393
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1394
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1395
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1398
number of 1399
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1403
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1404
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1405
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1406
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1407
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1408
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1410
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1411
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1415
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1416
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1417
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1418
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1419
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1420
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1421
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1422
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1426
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1428
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1429
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1430
setting of dual 1431
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1435
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1436
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1437
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1439
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1441
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1442
dual 1443
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1447
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1448
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1449
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1451
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1452
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1453
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1459
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1460
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1461
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1462
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1463
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1464
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1465
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1466
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1467
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1468
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, then 1469
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut set; 1470
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1471
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1472
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1473
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1474
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1475
connected. Then 1476
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1477
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1478
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1479
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1480
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1482
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1483
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1484
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1485
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1486
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1487
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1488
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1489
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1490
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1491
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1492
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1493
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1494
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1496
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1497
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1498
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1499
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1501
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1502
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1504
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1505
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1506
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1508
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1509
(ii) Γ = 1; 1510
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1511
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1512
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1513
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1514
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1515
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1516
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1517
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1518
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1519
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1520
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1521
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1523
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1524
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=12
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1525
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1527
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1528
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1530
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1531
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=12
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1532
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1534
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1535
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1536
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF; 1537
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1538
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1539
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1540
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1541
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1542
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1543
SuperHyperSet. Then 1544
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1545
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF; 1546
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1547

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1548
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1549
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1550
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1551
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1552
SuperHyperSet. Then 1553
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1554
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF : (V, E); 1555
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1556

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1557
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 1558
for N SHF : (V, E). 1559
following statements hold; 1561
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1562
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, then S is an 1563
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1564
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1565
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, then S is a dual 1566
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1567
following statements hold; 1569
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1570
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, then S is an 1571
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1572
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1573
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, then S is a dual 1574
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1575
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1576
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1577
hold; 1578
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1579
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1580
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1581
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1583
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1585
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1586
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1587
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1588
hold; 1589
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1590
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1592
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1594
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1596
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1597
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1599
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1600
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1601
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1603
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1605
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1608
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1610
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1611
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1612
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1614
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1616
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; 1617
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1619
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1621
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1622
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1623
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1625
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1627
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1630
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1632
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1633
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1634
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1636
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1638
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1641
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1642
Recognition 1643
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1644
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease is 1645
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1646
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1647
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some Extreme 1648
treatments for this Extreme disease. 1649
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1650
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1651
long-term Extreme function. 1652
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme model 1653
[it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the move 1654
from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer 1655
hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and 1656
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event 1657
leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to 1658
have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1659
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1660
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1661
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1662
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1663
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1664
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the Extreme 1665
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut or the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut in those Extreme 1666
Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1667
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1668
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1669
SuperHyperModel 1670
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1671
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1672
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1673
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1674
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1675
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1676
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1677
the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1678
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1679
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1680
SuperHyperModel 1681
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1682
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1683
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1684
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1685
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous result, 1686
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1687
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1688
is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. 1689
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1690
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1691
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1692
The SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut are defined on 1693
a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1694
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1695
recognitions? 1696
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 1697
and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut? 1698
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1699
compute them? 1700
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1701
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut? 1702
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 1703
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on 1704
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, are there else? 1705
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1706
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1707
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1708
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1709
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1710
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1711
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1712
highlighted. 1713
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1714
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1715
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1716
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the 1717
new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, Extreme 1718
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, finds the convenient background to implement some results 1719
based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the 1720
cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the 1721
cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1722
To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, the new 1723
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are 1724
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and the Extreme 1725
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken 1726
the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines 1727
containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1728
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1729
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1730
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1731
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1732
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1733
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut” in the themes of 1734
jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded 1735
styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut
3. Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1736
and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1737
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1738
Forms 1740
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1741
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1742
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1743
V 0 or E 0 is called 1744
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1745
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1746
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1747
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1748
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1749
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1750
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1751
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1752
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1753
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1754
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1755
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1756
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1757
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1758
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1760
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1761
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1762
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1763
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1764
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1765
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1766
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1768
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1769
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1770
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1771
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1772
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1773
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1774
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1775
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1776
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1777
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1779
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1780
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1781
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1782
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1783
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1784
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1786
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1796
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1801
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1803
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1804
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1808
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1810
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1811
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1812
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1816
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1817
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1821
Extreme coefficient. 1830
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1834
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1835
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1836
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1837
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1838
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1840
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 1843
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1844
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1845
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1846
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1847
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1848


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). 1891
Then 1892
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 1893
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 1897
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1901
Then 1903
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 1904
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1912
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1913
Then 1914
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 1915
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1925
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1926
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1927
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 1928
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 1933
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1934
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1935
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1936
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1937
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1938
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1946

= {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 1949
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1950

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1956
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1967
Then, 1969
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 1970
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 1971
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1972

∃!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 1977
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1978
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1980
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1981
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1983
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1984
Forms 1986
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1987
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 1991
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1992
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1993
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1994
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1996
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1997
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1998
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1999
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2001
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2002
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2003
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2006
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2007
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2008
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2012
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2013
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2015
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2019
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2020
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2021
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2022
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2028
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2030
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2040
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2046
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2047
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2051
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2053
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2054
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2064
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2077
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2078
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2083
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. 2085
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2091


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 2135
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 2136
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2140
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2144
Then 2146

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

.
Proof. Let 2147
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2155
Then 2157
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 2158

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2168
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 2171
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 2176
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2177
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2178
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2180
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2189

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 2192
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2193
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2194

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2197
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2198
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2199
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. 2210
Then, 2212

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

.
Proof. Let 2213
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2214

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2218
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2219
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2220
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2221
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2226
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2227
Forms 2229
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2230
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2234
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2235
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2236
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2237
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2239
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2240
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2241
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2242
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2244
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2245
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2246
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2247
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2250
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2252
SuperHyperPerfect; 2257
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2258
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2260
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2264
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2265
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2266
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2267
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2273
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2275
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2285
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2286
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2290
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2292
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2293
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2294
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2297
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2299
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2300
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2301
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2310
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2323
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2329
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. 2337


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 2381
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 2382
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2386
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2390
Then 2392
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 2393
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2401
Then 2403
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2404

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2414
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 2417
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 2422
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2423
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2424
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2425
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2426
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2435

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 2438
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2439

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2443
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2444
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2445
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. 2456
Then, 2458
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2459
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2460

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2464
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2465
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2466
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2467
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2472
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2473
Forms 2475
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2476
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2480
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2481
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2482
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2483
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2485
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2486
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2487
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2488
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2490
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2491
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2492
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2493
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2496
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2498
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2502
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2503
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2505
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2509
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2510
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2511
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2512
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2518
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2520
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2530
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2536
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2537
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2541
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2543
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2544
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2554
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2567
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2573
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. 2581


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 2625
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 2626
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2630
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2634
Then 2636
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 2637
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. 2645
Then 2647
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 2648
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2658
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 2661
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2666
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2667
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2670
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2679

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 2682
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2683
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2684

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2687
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2688
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. 2700
Then, 2702
∗
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 2703
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2704

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2708
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2709
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2710
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2711
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2716
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2717
Forms 2719
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2720
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2724
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2725
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2726
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2727
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2729
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2730
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2731
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2732
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2734
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2735
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2736
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2737
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2740
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2742
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2743
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2744
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2745
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2747
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2748
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2751
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2752
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2753
SuperHyperConnected; 2755
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2756
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2757
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2759
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2764
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2766
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2767
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2776
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2780
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2781
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2783
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2784
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2788
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2789
SuperHyperConnected; 2791
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2792
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2793
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2794
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2795
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2802
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2803
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2815
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2816
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2817
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2818
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2819
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2820
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2821
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2822
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 2825
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2826
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2827
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2828
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2830


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 2894
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 2895
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 2899
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2903
Then 2905
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 2906
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 2909
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2914
Then 2916
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 2917
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2927
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 2930
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2935
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2936
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2939
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2940
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2948
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 2951
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2952

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2956
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2957
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. 2969
Then, 2971
∗
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 2972
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2973

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2977
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2978
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2979
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2980
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2986
17 Background 2987
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2988
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2989
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 2990
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 2991
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 2992
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2993
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 2994
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 2995
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 2996
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 2997
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 2998
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2999
results based on initial background. 3000
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3001
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3002
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3003
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3004
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3005
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3006
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3007
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3008
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3009
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3010
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3011
SuperHyperNumbers. 3012
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3013
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3014
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3015
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3016
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3017
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3018
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3019
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3020
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3021
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3022
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3023
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3024
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3025
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3026
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3027
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3028
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3029
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3030
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3031
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3032
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3033
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3034
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3035
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3036
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3037
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3038
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3039
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3040
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3041
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3042
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3043
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3044
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3045
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3046
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3047
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3048
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3049
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3050
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3051
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3052
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3053
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3054
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3055
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3056
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3057
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3058
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3059
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3060
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3061
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3062
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3063
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3064
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3065
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3066
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3067
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3068
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3069
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3070
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3071
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3072
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3073
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3074
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3075
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [154] by Henry 3076
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3077
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3078
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [155] by Henry Garrett 3079
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3080
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3081
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [156] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3082
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3083
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3084
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [157] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3085
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3086
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [160] by 3087
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3088
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3089
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [161] by Henry 3090
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3091
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3092
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [164] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3093
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3094
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [167] by Henry 3095
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3096
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3097
in Ref. [168] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3098
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3099
Ref. [169] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3100
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3101
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [170] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3102
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3103
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [171] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3104
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3105
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [172] by Henry Garrett 3106
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [183] by Henry 3108
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3109
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3110
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [184] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–184], there 3111
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3112
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [185–289]. 3113
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3114
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [290, 291]. 3115
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3116
proposed as book in Ref. [278] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3117
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3118
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3119
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3120
theory. 3121
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3122
proposed as book in Ref. [279] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3123
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3124
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3125
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3126
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3127
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3128
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3129
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3130
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3131
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3132
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–184] alongside scientific 3133
research books at [185–289]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3134
of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [290, 291]. 3135
References 3136
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3137
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3138
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3139
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3140
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3141
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3142
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3143
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3144
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3145
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3146
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3147
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3148
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3149
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3150
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3151
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3152
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3153
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3154
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3155
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3156
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3157
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3158
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3159
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3160
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3161
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3162
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3163
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3164
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3165
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3166
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3167
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3168
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3169
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3170
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3171
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3173
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3174
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3175
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3176
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3177
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3178
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3179
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3180
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3182
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3183
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3184
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3185
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3186
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3187
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3188
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3189
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3190
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3191
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3192
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3193
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3194
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3195
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3196
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3197
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3198
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3200
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3201
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3202
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3203
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3204
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3205
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3206
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3207
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3208
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3209
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3210
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3212
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3216
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3217
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3218
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3219
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3220
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3221
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3222
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3223
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3224
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3225
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3226
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3227
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3228
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3229
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3230
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3231
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3233
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3234
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3235
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3236
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3237
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853867). 3238
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3240
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7851519). 3241
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3242
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3243
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7851550). 3244
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3246
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3247
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3248
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3249
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3252
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3253
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3254
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3255
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3258
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3261
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3264
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7819531). 3265
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3267
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3270
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3271
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3273
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3274
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3276
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3277
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3278
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3279
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3282
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3285
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3286
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3288
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3291
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3292
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3293
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3295
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3296
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3297
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3299
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3300
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3301
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3302
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3305
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3308
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3309
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3311
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3312
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3314
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3317
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3320
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3323
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3324
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3326
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3329
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3332
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3335
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3338
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3340
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3341
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3342
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3344
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3347
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3348
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3349
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3350
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3351
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3353
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3356
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3359
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3360
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3362
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3363
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3365
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3366
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3367
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3368
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3369
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3371
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3374
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3377
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3378
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3380
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3383
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3385
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3387
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3389
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3391
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3392
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3395
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3397
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3398
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3401
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3403
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3405
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3407
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3409
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3410
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3413
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3414
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3416
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3419
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3421
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3423
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3425
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3426
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3428
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3430
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3432
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3434
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3435
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3436
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3437
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3438
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3440
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3441
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3442
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3443
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3446
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3448
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3449
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3452
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3454
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3455
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3458
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3460
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3462
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3464
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3465
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3466
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3467
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3470
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3471
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3472
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3473
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3476
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3477
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3478
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3479
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3482
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3483
107. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3484
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3485
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3488
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3489
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3490
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3491
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3494
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3495
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3496
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3497
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3499
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3500
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3503
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3504
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3505
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3506
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3509
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3510
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3511
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3512
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3515
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3517
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3518
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3521
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3523
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3524
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3526
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3527
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3530
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3533
124. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3535
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3536
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3538
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3539
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3541
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3542
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3543
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3544
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3545
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3546
128. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3547
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3548
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3550
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3551
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3552
130. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3553
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3554
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3555
131. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3556
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3557
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3558
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3559
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3562
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3563
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3566
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3567
134. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3568
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3570
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3571
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3574
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3575
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3578
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3579
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3580
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3581
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3582
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3583
138. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3584
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3585
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3586
139. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3587
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3588
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3589
140. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3590
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3591
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3592
141. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3593
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3594
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3595
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3596
142. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3597
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3598
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3599
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3600
143. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3601
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3602
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3603
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3604
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3605
144. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3606
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3607
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3608
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3609
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3610
145. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3611
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3612
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3613
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3614
146. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3615
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3616
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3617
147. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3618
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3619
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3621
148. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3622
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3623
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3624
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3625
149. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3626
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3627
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3628
150. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3629
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3630
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3631
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3632
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3633
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3634
151. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3635
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3636
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3637
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3638
152. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3639
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3640
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3641
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3642
153. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3643
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3644
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3645
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3646
154. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3647
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3648
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3649
155. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3650
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3651
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3652
156. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3654
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3655
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3656
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3657
157. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3658
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3659
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3660
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3661
158. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3662
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3663
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3664
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3665
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3667
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3668
160. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3669
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3670
161. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3672
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3673
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3674
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3679
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3683
164. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3684
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3685
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3686
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3687
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3690
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3692
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3693
167. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3694
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3695
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3699
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3700
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3702
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3703
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3706
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3707
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3709
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3710
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3713
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3714
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3716
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3717
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3719
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3724
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3725
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3729
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3730
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3733
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3736
179. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3737
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3738
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3739
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3740
180. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3741
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3742
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3743
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3744
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3747
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3748
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3751
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3752
183. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3753
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 3754
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3755
184. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3756
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3757
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3758
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3759
185. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3760
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7851893). 3761
186. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3762
187. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3764
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7835063). 3765
188. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3766
189. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3768
190. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3770
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3771
191. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3772
192. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3774
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3775
193. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3776
194. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3778
195. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3780
196. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3782
197. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3784
198. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3786
199. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3788
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3789
200. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3790
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3791
201. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3792
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3794
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3795
203. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3796
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3797
204. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3798
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3799
205. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3800
206. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3802
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3803
207. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3804
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3805
208. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3806
209. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3808
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3809
210. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3810
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3811
211. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3812
212. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3814
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3815
213. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3816
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3817
214. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3818
215. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3820
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3821
216. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3822
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3823
217. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3824
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3825
218. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3826
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3827
219. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3828
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3829
220. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3830
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3831
221. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3832
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3833
222. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3834
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3835
223. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3836
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3837
224. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3838
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3839
225. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3840
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3841
226. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3842
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3843
227. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3844
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3845
228. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3846
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3847
229. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3848
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3849
230. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3850
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3851
231. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3852
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3853
232. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3854
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3855
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3856
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3857
234. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3858
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3859
235. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3860
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3861
236. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3862
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3863
237. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3864
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3865
238. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3866
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3867
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3868
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3869
240. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3870
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3871
241. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3872
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3873
242. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3874
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3875
243. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3876
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3877
244. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3878
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3879
245. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3880
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3881
246. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3882
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3883
247. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3884
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3885
248. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3886
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3887
249. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3888
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3889
250. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3890
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3891
251. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3892
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3893
252. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3894
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3895
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3896
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3897
254. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3898
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3899
255. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3900
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3901
256. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3902
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3903
257. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3904
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3905
258. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3906
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3907
259. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3908
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3909
260. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3910
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3911
261. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3912
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3913
262. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3914
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3915
263. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3916
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3917
264. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3918
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3919
265. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3920
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3921
266. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3922
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3923
267. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3924
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3925
268. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3926
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3927
269. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3928
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3929
270. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3930
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3931
271. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3932
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3933
272. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3934
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3935
273. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3936
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3937
274. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3938
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3939
275. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3940
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3941
276. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3942
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3943
277. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3944
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3945
278. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3946
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3947
279. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3948
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3949
280. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3950
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3951
281. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3953
282. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3955
283. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3956
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3957
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3958
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3959
285. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3960
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3961
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3962
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3963
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3964
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3965
288. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3966
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3967
289. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3968
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3969
290. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3970
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3971
291. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3972
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3973
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

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

Preprint · April 2023

456 PUBLICATIONS 13,757 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 2

Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 21

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

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

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 24

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) 25

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 26

pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s 28

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 29

re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and 30

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 31

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 32

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 33

conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 34

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; a 35

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 36

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 37

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and 38

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 39

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 41

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 42

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut 43

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 44

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, 45

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 46

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 47

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 48

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 49

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 50

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut; and 51

the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 52

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 53

e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 54

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Cut and 55

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 56

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 57

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 58

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 59

conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 60