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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370202367
New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Eulerian-Cycle-

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7855637
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
458 PUBLICATIONS 14,086 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 22 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2
Of Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer 3
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 14
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the all number of SuperHyperEdges;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 16
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 19
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 24
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 25
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition). 26
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 27
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 28
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 36
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 45
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 46
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 47
v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 48
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 50
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 51
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 52
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 53
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power 54
is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 55
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 56
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 60
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 61
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 62
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 63
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 64
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 65
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 66
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 67
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 71
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive 72
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 73
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 74
V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 79
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 80
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 83
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 84
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 85
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 88
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 89
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 90
cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 91
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 92
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 94
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 98
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 99
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 100
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 101
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 103
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 104
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 105
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Two different types of 106
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 107
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 108
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 109
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 110
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 111
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 112
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 113
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 114
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 115
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 116
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 117
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 118
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 119
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 120
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 121
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 122
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 123
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 124
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 125
δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 126
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 127
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 128
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 129
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 130
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 131
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 132
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 133
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 134
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 135
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 136
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 137
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 138
version of a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 139
type-results to make a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. For the 140
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to 141
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices 142
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 143
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 144
Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 145
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The 146
Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to 147
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The 148
Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The 149
SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 150
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 151
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of 152
Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the 153
next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 154
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 155
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 156
have all SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition until the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 157
then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 158
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition . There are some instances about the clarifications for 159
the main definition titled a “SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. These two examples 160
get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways 161
of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition . For the sake of 162
having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” 163
the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 165
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 166
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 167
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 168
Table holds. And a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 170
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 171
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 172
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 174
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 175
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic 177
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 178
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 179
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” 180
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the 181
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition amid the maximum value amid all 182
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition .] 183
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 184
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 185
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 186
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 187
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s only 188
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar 189
it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 190
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 191
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 192
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 193
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 194
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 195
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 196
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 197
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 198
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 199
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 200
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 201
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 202
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 203
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 204
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 205
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 206
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 207
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 208
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 209
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 210
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 211
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 212
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 213
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 214
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 215
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 216
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 217
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 218
either the longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition or the strongest 219
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 220
longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, called SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, and 221
the strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 222
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 223
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 224
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 225
of a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 226
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 227
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 228
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition theory, 229
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 230
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 231
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 232
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 233
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 234
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 235
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 236
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 237
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 238
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 239
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 240
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 241
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 242
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 243
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 244
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 245
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 246
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 247
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 248
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 249
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 250
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 251
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 252
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 253
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 254
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 255
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 256
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 257
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 258
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 259
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 260
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 261
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 262
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 263
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 264
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 265
formally called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 266
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 267
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 268
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 269
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 270
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 271
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 272
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 273
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 274
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 275
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 276
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 277
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 278
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 279
either the optimal SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition or the Extreme 280
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general 281
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme 282
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 283
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 284
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 285
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 286
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 287
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 288
find the “ amount of SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or the 289
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 290
of SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 291
group of cells? 292
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 293
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 294
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 295
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 296
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” on 297
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 298
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 299
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 300
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 301
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 302
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 303
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 304
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 305
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 306
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 307
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 308
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 309
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 310
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, are 311
figured out in sections “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Extreme 312
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 313
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 314
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 315
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 316
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 317
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 318
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 319
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 320
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 321
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 322
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 323
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 324
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 325
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”, 326
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There 327
are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense 328
about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 329
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ 330
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 331
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 332
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 333
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 334
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 335
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 336
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 337
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 338
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 339
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 340
Research On the Redeemed Ways 341
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 342
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [185],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 343
Set](Ref. [185],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 344
(NSHG)](Ref. [185],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [185],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [185], 346
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 347
(NSHG)](Ref. [185],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 348
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [185],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 349
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [185],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 350
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [185]. 351
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 352
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 353
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [185],Definition 2.1,p.1). 354
Let X be a Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

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

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 355
+
]− 0, 1 [. 356
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [185],Definition 2.2,p.2). 357
Let X be a Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

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

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

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

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [185],Definition 358
2.5,p.2). 359
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 360
pair S = (V, E), where 361
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 362
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 363
1, 2, . . . , n); 364
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 365
V; 366
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 367
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 368
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 369
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 370
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 371
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 372
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 373
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 375
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 376
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 377
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 378
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 379
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 380
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 381
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 382
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 383
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 384
(Ref. [185],Definition 2.7,p.3). 385
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 386
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 387
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 388
characterized as follow-up items. 389
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 390
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 391
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 392
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 393
HyperEdge; 394
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 395
SuperEdge; 396
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 397
SuperHyperEdge. 398
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 399
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 400
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [185], Definition 2.7, p.3). 401
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 402
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 403
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 404
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 405
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 406
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 407
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

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

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 408
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 409
pair S = (V, E), where 410
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 411
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 412
1, 2, . . . , n); 413
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 414
V; 415
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 416
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 417
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 418
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 419
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 420
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 421
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 423
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 424
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 426
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 427
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 428
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 429
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 430
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 431
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 432
(Ref. [185],Definition 2.7,p.3). 433
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 434
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 435
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 436
characterized as follow-up items. 437
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 438
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 439
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 440
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 441
HyperEdge; 442
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 443
SuperEdge; 444
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 445
SuperHyperEdge. 446
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 447
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 448
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 449
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 450
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 451
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 452
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 453
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 454
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 455
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 456
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 457
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 458
given SuperHyperEdges; 459
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 460
SuperHyperEdges; 461
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 462
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 463
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 464
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 465
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 466
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 467
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 468
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 469
common SuperVertex. 470
Definition 3.14. Let a pair S = (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)

S. Then a sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 471
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 472
of following conditions hold: 473
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 480
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 481
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 482
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 483
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 484
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 485
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 486
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 487
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 488
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 489
SuperHyperPath . 490
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 491
(Ref. [185],Definition 5.3,p.7). 492
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). A

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 493
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 494
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 495
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 496
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 497
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 498
(NSHE)). (Ref. [185],Definition 5.4,p.7). 499
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 500
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 501
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 502
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 503
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 504
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 505
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 506
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 508
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 509
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 511
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 512
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 513
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 514
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 515
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition). 516
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 518
either V 0 or E 0 is called 519
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 520
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 521
criteria holds 522
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 523
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 524
criteria holds 525
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 526
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 527
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 528
criteria holds 529
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 530
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 531
criteria holds 532
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 533
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 534
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 535
re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 536
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 538
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition). 539
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 541
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 542
e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 543
rv-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 546
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 547
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 548
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 549
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 550
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 551
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 552
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 557
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 558
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 561
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial if 562
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 563
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 567
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 568
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 569
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 570
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 572
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 573
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 574
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 575
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 580
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 581
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 582
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 583
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 584
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 585
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 586
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 587
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 592
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 593
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 594
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 596
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 597
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 602
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 603
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 607
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 613
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 614
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 615
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 616
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 618
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 619
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 620
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 626
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 627
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 628
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 629
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 630
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 631
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 632
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition). 633
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 634
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of 635
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the following 636
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 637
s∈S: 638
|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 639
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 640
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind 641
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the following 642
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 643
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 644
|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. 645
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 646
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 647
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 648
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 649
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)
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 650
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 651
assign to the values. 652
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 653
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 654
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 655
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 656
understandable. 657
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 658
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 659
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 660
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 661
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 662
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 663
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 664
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 665
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 666
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 667
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly understandable. 668
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 669
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 670
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 671
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 672
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 673
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 674
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 675

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 676
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 677
Forms 678
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 679
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 680
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 681
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 682
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 683
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 684
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 686
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 687
s-independent criteria 688
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. 689
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 690
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 691
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any k-function Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 693
like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 694
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Extreme Variable. 695
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 696
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 697
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 699
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 700
Expectation criteria 701
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 702
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme number is called 704
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 705
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). 706
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let m and n propose special 707
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 708
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 709
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 710
independently with probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 711
H := G[S]. 712
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: 713
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
714
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 715
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 716
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 717
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 718
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 719
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 720
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 721
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 722
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 723
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 724
2 3
l < 32n /k . 725
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 727
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 728
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 729
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 730
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 731
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 732
i = 0n−1 ni = n
P
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 733
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
734
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 735
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 736
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 737
n−1
X
e(H) = ini = 2k − n1 − 2n2 ≥ 2k − 2n.
i=3
Some SuperHyperPairs of SuperHyperVertices of H might be joined by some parallel 738
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 739
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 740
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 741
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 742
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 743
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 744
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 745
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 746
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 747
E(X)
P (X ≥ t) ≤ .
t
Proof.
X X
E(X) = {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V } ≥ {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
X X
{tP (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t} = t {P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
tP (X ≥ t).
Dividing the first and last members by t yields the asserted inequality. 748
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 749
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 750
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 751
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 752
Proof. 753
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 754
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 755
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 756
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 758
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 759
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 760
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 761
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 762
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 763
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 764
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 765
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 766
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: 767
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 768
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 769
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 770
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 771
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 772
number at most k. 773
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 774
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 776
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 777
Variance criteria 778
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be an 780
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 781
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let 783
t be a positive real number. Then 784
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
785
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be an 787
Extreme Variable in a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 788
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 789
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 791
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 792
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 793
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 795
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 796
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 797
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. As in the proof of related Theorem, 799
the result is straightforward. 800
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 802
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 803
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 804
or 805
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 806
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 808
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 809
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 811
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 812
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 813
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 814
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 815
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 816
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Extreme 818
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 819
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 820
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a 822
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 823
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 824
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 825
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is straightforward. 827
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 828
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 829
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 830
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 831
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 832
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 833
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 834
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 835
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 836
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 837
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 838
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 , V1 }}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z4.
839
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 842
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 843
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 844
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 845
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 846
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 847
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 848

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 , V1 }}.
= z4.

849
straightforward. 852

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V1 }}.
= z4.
853

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


857

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

861

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

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

869

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

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



877

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

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

885

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

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



893

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
897

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


901

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
905

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
909




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

= {{Eii=112 }}.
= z 12 .
= {{V Eii=112 }}.
|{V Ei }|
=z i=112 .

917

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

= {{E1 , E2 }}.
= z2.
= {{V1 , V2 , {R}, {M6 }, {L6 }, {F }, {P }, {J}, {M }, V3 , V1 }}.
= z 11 .

925

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
929
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 930
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 931
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 932
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 933
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 934
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 935
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 936
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 937
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 938
any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 939
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 940


SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 941
an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 942
of them but not all of them. 943
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-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is 944
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 945
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 946
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 947
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 948
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 949
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 950
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 951
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with the least Extreme cardinality, 952
the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 953
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 954
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 955
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the 956
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is the 957
cardinality of 958
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor
amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Extreme number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme

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

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

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

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

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition.
It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to
deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and
cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes,
are well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the
examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 959
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 960
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 961
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 962
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 963
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 964
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 965
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 966
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition decorates the

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

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 967
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 968
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 969
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 970
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-Decomposition. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in
an Extreme style-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge

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

SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Extreme cardinality ,

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 971
Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
972
Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 973
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 974
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 975
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 976
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 977
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but 978
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 979
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 980
contained in an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 981
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 982
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 983
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 984
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 985
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 986
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 987
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 988
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 989
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 990
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 991
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 992
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 993
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of 994
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 995
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 996
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 997
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 998
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 999
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 1000
Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The interior types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1001
are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 1002
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and 1003
more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any 1004
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1005
Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme 1006
SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme 1007
SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme 1008
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since 1009
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1010
relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 1011
inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1012
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1013
implying the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1014
with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme 1015
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with the 1016
inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 1017
Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1018
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1019
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1020
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition minus all 1021
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1022
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1023
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1024
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1025
The main definition of the Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition has two titles. an 1026
Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1027
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1028
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with that quasi-maximum 1029
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1030
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1031
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1032
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decompositions for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1033
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ends 1034
up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1035
again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme 1036
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decompositions acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme 1037
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 1038
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1039
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decompositions. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1040
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and 1041
an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition . Then 1042
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1043
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1044
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1045
technical definition for the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1046
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1047
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1048
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1049
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1050

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1051
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1052
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1053

1054

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1055
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1056
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1057
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1058
Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1059
Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” since “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” happens 1060
“Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1061
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1062
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1063
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1064
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1065
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”, and “Extreme 1066
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” are up. 1067
Thus, let 1068
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1069
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1070
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the new terms are 1071
up. 1072
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1073
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1074
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1075
And with go back to initial structure, 1076
GExtreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


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

1078

1079

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1080
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if for 1081
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1082
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1083
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1084
them. 1085
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1086
are coming up. 1087
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1088
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1089
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1090
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1091
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1092
Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the

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

R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1093
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1094
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1095
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1096
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1097
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-Decomposition. There isn’t only less
than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1098
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1099
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1100
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1101
“Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” 1102
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1103
Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1104
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-Decomposition amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1105
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-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1106
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1107
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1108
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1109
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1110
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1111
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1112
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1113
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1114
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1115
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1116
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with the 1117
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1118
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1119
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1120
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1121
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme 1122
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1123
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1125
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1126
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1127
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1128
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such 1129
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1130
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1131
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1132
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1133
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1134
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1135
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1136
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE 1137
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1138
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 1139
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1140
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1141
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1142
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1143
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1144
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1145
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1146
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1147
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1148
there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1149
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1150
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1151
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1152
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither empty 1153
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1154
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1155
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Extreme SuperHyperSet 1156
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1157
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme . The

Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1158
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1159
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1160
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1161
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1163
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1164
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1165
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1166
non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1167
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is an Extreme 1168
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1169
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1170
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 1171
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1172
Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1173
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1174
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 1175
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1176
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1177
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1178
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1179
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1180
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1181
and it’s an Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1182
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1184
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1185
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1186
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1187
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition , 1188
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 1189
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition , not: 1190
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1191
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 1192
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1193
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1194
“Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ” 1195
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1196
Extreme Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition , 1197
is only and only 1198
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1199
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1200
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1201
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1202
SuperHyperClasses. 1203
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1204

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1205
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1206
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1207
There’s a new way to redefine as 1208
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 1209
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1210
The latter is straightforward. 1211
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1212
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1213
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1214
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1215
Then 1216

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |EN SHG | .
= {{VEi ∈EN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG |.
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
1217
(5.2)
Proof. Let 1218
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1219
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). 1220

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )| ≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 1222
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.7)
Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1225
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1226
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1227
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1228

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1229
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1230
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1231
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.9)
a new way to redefine as 1232

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1236
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1237
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1238
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1239
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1240
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1241
Then 1242

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1243
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
1244
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). 1245

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1249
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1250
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. There 1251
are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1252
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1253
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition taken from a connected Extreme 1254
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1255
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1256
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1258
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1259
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1260
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1261
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1262
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1263
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1264
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1265

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1266
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1267
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 1269

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1272
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1273
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. There 1274
are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1275
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1277
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1281
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1282
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1283
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1284
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1285
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1286
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1288
Then, 1289

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1290
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
1291
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1293

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1296
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1297
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. The 1298
unique embedded SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition proposes some longest 1299
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1300
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1302
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1303
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1304
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1305
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1306
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1307
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1308
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, and the 1309
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1310
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Extreme Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1311
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1312
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1313
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Decomposition
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−Cycle−Decomposition. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1314
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1315
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1316
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1317
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and 1318
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition coincide. 1319
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1321
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1322
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1324
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1325
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1326
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1327
its SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1328
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1329
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1330
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1331
is its SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1332
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1333
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1334
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1335
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1336
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1337
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1340
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1341
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1343
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1344
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1345
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1346
its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1347
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1350
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1351
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1353
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1354
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1355
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1356
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1357
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1358
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1359
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1360
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1361
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1362
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1363
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1364
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1365
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1366
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1367
independent SuperHyperSet is 1368
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1369
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1370
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1371
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1372
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1373
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1374
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1375
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1376
a maximal 1377
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1378
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1379
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1380
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1381
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1382
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1383
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1384
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1385
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1386
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1387
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1388
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1389
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1390
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1391
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1392
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1393
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1395
number of 1396
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1397
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1398
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1399
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1400
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1401
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1402
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1403
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1404
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1406
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1407
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1408
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1409
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1410
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1411
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1412
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1413
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1416
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1417
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1418
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1419
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1423
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1424
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1425
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1428
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1429
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1430
is a 1431
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1435
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1436
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1437
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1440
number of 1441
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1445
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1446
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1447
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1448
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1449
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1450
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1452
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1453
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1457
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1458
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1459
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1460
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1461
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1462
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1463
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1464
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1468
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1470
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1472
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1473
setting of dual 1474
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1478
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1479
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1480
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1482
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1484
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1485
dual 1486
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1490
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1491
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1492
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1494
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1495
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1496
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1502
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1504
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1505
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1506
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1507
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1508
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1509
such that 1510
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1511
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1512
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1513
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1514
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition set; 1515
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1516
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1517
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1518
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1519
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1520
connected. Then 1521
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1522
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1523
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1524
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1525
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1527
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1528
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1529
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1530
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1531
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1532
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1534
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1535
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1536
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1537
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1538
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1539
Then 1540
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1541
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1543
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1544
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1545
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1546
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1548
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1549
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1551
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1552
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1553
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1555
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1556
(ii) Γ = 1; 1557
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1558
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1559
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1561
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1562
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1563
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1564
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1565
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1566
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1567
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1568
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1569
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1571
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1572
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1573
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1575
bn
2c
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1578

bnc ; 1579
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1580
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1582
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1583
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1584
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1585
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1586
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1587
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1588
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1589
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1590
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1591
SuperHyperSet. Then 1592
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1593
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1595

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1596
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1597
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1599
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1600
SuperHyperSet. Then 1601
bn
2c
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1603
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1604

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1605
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1606
following statements hold; 1609
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1610
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1611
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1612
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1613
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1614
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1615
following statements hold; 1617
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1618
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1619
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1620
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1621
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1622
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1623
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1624
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1625
hold; 1626
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1627
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1628
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1629
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1631
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1633
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1634
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1635
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1636
hold; 1637
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1638
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1640
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1642
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1644
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1645
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1647
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1648
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1649
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1651
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1653
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1656
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1658
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1659
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1660
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1662
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1664
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1665
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1667
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1669
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1670
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1671
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1673
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1675
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1678
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1680
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1681
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1682
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1684
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1686
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1689
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1690
Recognition 1691
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1692
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease is 1693
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1694
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1695
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some Extreme 1696
treatments for this Extreme disease. 1697
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1698
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1699
long-term Extreme function. 1700
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme model 1701
[it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the move 1702
from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer 1703
hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and 1704
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event 1705
leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to 1706
have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1707
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1708
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1709
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1710
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1711
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1712
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1713
find either the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition or the Extreme 1714
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1715
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1716
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1717
SuperHyperModel 1718
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1719
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1720
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1721
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1722
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1723
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1724
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1725
the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1726
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1727
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1728
SuperHyperModel 1729
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1730
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1731
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1732
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1733
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous result, 1734
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1735
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1736
is the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1737
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1738
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1739
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1740
The SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1741
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1742
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1743
recognitions? 1744
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1745
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1746
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1747
compute them? 1748
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1749
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1750
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme 1751
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1752
they’re based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, are there else? 1753
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1754
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1755
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1756
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1757
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1758
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1759
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1760
highlighted. 1761
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1762
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1763
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1764
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1765
Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1766
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1767
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 1768
Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions 1769
where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on 1770
the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1771
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1772
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1773
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The 1774
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this 1775
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the 1776
results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1777
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of 1778
this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups 1779
of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1780
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1781
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1782
called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1783
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1784
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
3. Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1785
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1786
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1787
Forms 1789
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1790
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1791
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1792
V 0 or E 0 is called 1793
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1794
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1795
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1796
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1797
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1798
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1799
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1800
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1801
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1802
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1803
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1804
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1805
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1806
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1807
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1809
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1810
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1811
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1812
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1813
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1814
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1815
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1817
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1818
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1819
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1820
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1821
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1822
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1823
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1824
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1825
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1826
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1828
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1829
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1830
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1831
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1832
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1833
Extreme coefficient; 1834
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1835
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1845
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1852
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1853
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1857
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1858
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1859
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1860
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1861
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1865
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1866
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1870
Extreme coefficient. 1879
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1883
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1884
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1885
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1886
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1887
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1889
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 1892
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1893
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1894
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1895
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1896
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1897


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). 1940
Then 1941
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 1942
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 1946
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1950
Then 1952
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 1953
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1961
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1962
Then 1963
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 1964
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1974
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1975
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1976
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 1977
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 1982
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1983
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1984
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1986
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1987
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1995

= {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 1998
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1999

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2005
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2015
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2016
Then, 2018
∗ ∗
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 2019
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 2020
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2021

∃!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 2026
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2027
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2029
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2030
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2032
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2033
Forms 2035
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2036
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2040
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2041
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2042
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2043
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2045
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2046
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2047
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2048
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2050
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2051
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2052
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2055
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2056
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2057
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2058
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2059
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2060
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2061
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2062
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2064
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2068
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2069
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2070
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2071
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2077
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2079
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2089
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2093
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2094
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2095
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2096
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2100
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2102
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2103
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2113
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2126
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2127
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2132
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. 2134
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2140


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 2184
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 2185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2189
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2193
Then 2195

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

.
Proof. Let 2196
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2204
Then 2206
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 2207

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2217
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 2220
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 2225
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2226
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2227
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2229
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2238

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 2241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2242
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2243

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2246
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2247
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2248
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. 2259
Then, 2261

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

.
Proof. Let 2262
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2263

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2267
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2268
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2269
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2270
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2275
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2276
Forms 2278
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2279
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2283
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2284
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2285
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2286
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2288
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2289
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2290
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2291
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2293
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2294
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2295
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2296
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2299
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2301
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 2305
SuperHyperPerfect; 2306
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2307
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2309
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2313
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2314
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2315
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2316
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2322
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2324
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2334
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2335
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2341
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2342
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2343
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2346
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2347
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2348
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2349
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2350
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2359
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2372
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2378
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. 2386


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 2430
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 2431
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2435
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2439
Then 2441
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 2442
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2450
Then 2452
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2453

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2463
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 2466
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 2471
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2472
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2473
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2474
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2475
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2484

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 2487
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2488

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2492
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2493
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2494
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. 2505
Then, 2507
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2508
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2509

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2513
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2514
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2515
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2516
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2521
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2522
Forms 2524
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2525
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2529
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2530
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2531
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2532
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2534
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2535
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2536
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2537
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2539
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2540
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2541
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2542
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2545
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2547
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2551
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2552
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2554
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2558
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2559
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2560
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2561
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2567
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2569
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2579
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2583
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2584
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2585
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2586
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2590
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2592
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2593
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2603
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2616
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2622
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. 2630


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 2674
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 2675
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2679
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2683
Then 2685
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 2686
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. 2694
Then 2696
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 2697
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2707
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 2710
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2715
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2716
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2719
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2728

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 2731
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2732
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2733

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2736
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2737
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. 2749
Then, 2751
∗
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 2752
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2753

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2757
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2758
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2759
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2760
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2765
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2766
Forms 2768
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2769
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2773
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2774
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2775
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2776
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2778
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2779
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2780
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2781
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2783
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2784
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2785
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2786
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2789
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2791
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2792
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2793
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2794
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2796
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2797
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2800
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2801
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2802
SuperHyperConnected; 2804
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2805
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2806
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2808
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2813
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2815
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2816
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2825
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2829
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2830
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2832
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2833
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2837
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2838
SuperHyperConnected; 2840
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2841
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2842
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2843
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2844
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2851
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2852
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2864
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2865
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2866
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2867
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2868
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2869
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2870
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2871
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 2874
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2875
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2876
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2877
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2879


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 2943
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 2944
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 2948
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2952
Then 2954
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 2955
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 2958
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2963
Then 2965
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 2966
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2976
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 2979
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2984
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2985
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2988
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2989
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2997
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 3000
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 3001

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3005
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3006
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. 3018
Then, 3020
∗
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 3021
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3022

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3026
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3027
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3028
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3029
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3035
17 Background 3036
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3037
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3038
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3039
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3040
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3041
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3042
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3043
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3044
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3045
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3046
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3047
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3048
results based on initial background. 3049
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3050
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3051
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3052
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3053
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3054
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3055
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3056
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3057
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3058
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3059
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3060
SuperHyperNumbers. 3061
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3062
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3063
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3064
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3065
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3066
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3067
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3068
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3069
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3070
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3071
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3072
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3073
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3074
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3075
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3076
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3077
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3078
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3079
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3080
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3081
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3082
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3083
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3084
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3085
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3086
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3087
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3088
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3089
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3090
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3091
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3092
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3093
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3094
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3095
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3096
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3097
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3098
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3099
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3100
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3101
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3102
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3103
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3104
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3105
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3106
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3107
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3108
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3109
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3110
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3111
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3112
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3113
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3114
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3115
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3116
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3117
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3118
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3119
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3120
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3121
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3122
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3123
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3124
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [155] by Henry 3125
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3126
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3127
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [156] by Henry Garrett 3128
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3129
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3130
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [157] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3131
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3132
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [158] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3134
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [161] by 3136
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3137
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3138
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [162] by Henry 3139
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3140
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3141
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [165] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3142
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3143
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [168] by Henry 3144
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3145
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3146
in Ref. [169] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3147
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3148
Ref. [170] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3149
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3150
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [171] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3151
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3152
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [172] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3153
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3154
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [173] by Henry Garrett 3155
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [184] by Henry 3157
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3158
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3159
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [185] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–185], there 3160
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3161
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [186–291]. 3162
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3163
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [292, 293]. 3164
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3165
proposed as book in Ref. [280] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3166
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3167
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3168
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3169
theory. 3170
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3171
proposed as book in Ref. [281] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3172
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3173
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3174
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3175
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3176
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3177
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3178
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3179
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3180
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3181
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–185] alongside scientific 3182
research books at [186–291]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3183
of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [292, 293]. 3184
References 3185
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3186
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3187
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3188
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3189
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3190
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3191
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3192
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3193
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3194
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3195
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3196
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3197
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3198
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3199
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3200
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3201
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3202
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3203
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3204
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3205
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3206
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3207
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3208
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3209
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3210
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3211
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3212
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3213
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3214
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3215
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3216
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3217
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3218
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3219
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3220
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3221
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3222
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3223
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3224
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3225
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3226
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3227
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3228
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3229
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3230
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3231
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3232
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3233
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3234
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3235
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3236
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3237
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3238
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3239
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3240
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3241
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3242
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3243
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3244
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3245
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3246
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3247
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3249
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3250
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3251
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3252
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3253
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3254
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3255
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3256
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3257
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3258
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3259
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3261
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3265
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3266
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3267
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3268
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3269
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3270
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3271
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3272
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3273
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3274
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3275
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3276
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3278
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3279
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3280
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3281
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3282
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3283
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3284
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3285
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3286
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853867). 3287
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3288
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3289
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853922). 3290
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3292
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7851519). 3293
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3294
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3295
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3298
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3299
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3300
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3301
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3304
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3305
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3307
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3310
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3313
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3316
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7819531). 3317
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3319
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3322
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3323
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3325
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3326
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3328
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3329
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3331
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3334
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3337
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3338
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3340
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3343
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3344
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3345
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3347
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3348
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3349
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3351
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3352
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3353
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3354
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3357
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3360
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3361
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3363
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3364
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3366
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3369
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3372
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3375
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3376
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3378
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3381
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3384
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3387
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3390
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3392
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3393
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3394
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3396
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3399
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3400
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3401
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3402
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3403
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3405
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3408
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3411
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3412
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3414
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3415
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3417
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3418
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3419
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3420
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3421
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3423
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3426
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3429
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3430
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3432
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3435
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3437
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3439
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3441
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3443
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3444
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3447
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3449
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3450
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3453
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3455
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3457
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3459
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3461
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3462
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3465
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3466
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3468
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3471
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3473
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3475
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3477
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3478
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3480
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3482
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3484
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3486
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3487
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3488
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3489
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3490
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3492
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3493
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3494
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3495
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3498
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3500
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3501
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3504
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3506
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3507
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3510
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3512
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3514
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3516
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3517
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3518
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3519
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3522
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3523
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3524
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3525
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3528
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3529
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3530
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3531
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3534
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3535
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3536
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3537
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3540
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3541
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3542
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3543
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3546
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3547
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3548
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3549
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3551
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3552
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3555
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3556
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3557
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3558
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3561
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3562
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3563
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3564
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3567
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3569
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3570
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3573
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3575
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3576
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3578
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3579
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3582
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3585
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3587
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3588
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3590
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3591
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3593
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3594
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3595
128. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3596
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3597
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3598
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3599
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3600
130. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3602
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3603
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3604
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3605
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3606
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3607
132. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3608
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3609
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3610
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3611
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3614
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3615
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3618
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3619
135. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3620
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3622
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3623
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3626
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3627
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3630
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3631
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3632
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3633
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3634
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3635
139. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3636
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3637
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3638
140. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3639
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3640
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3641
141. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3642
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3643
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3644
142. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3645
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3646
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3647
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3648
143. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3649
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3650
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3651
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3652
144. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3653
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3654
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3655
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3656
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3657
145. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3658
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3659
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3660
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3661
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3662
146. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3664
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3665
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3666
147. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3667
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3668
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3669
148. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3670
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3671
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3673
149. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3674
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3675
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3676
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3677
150. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3678
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3679
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3680
151. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3681
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3682
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3683
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3684
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3685
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3686
152. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3687
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3688
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3689
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3690
153. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3691
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3693
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3694
154. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3695
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3696
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3697
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3698
155. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3699
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3700
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3701
156. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3702
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3703
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3704
157. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3706
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3707
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3708
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3709
158. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3710
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3711
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3712
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3713
159. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3714
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3715
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3716
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3717
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3719
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3720
161. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3721
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3722
162. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3724
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3725
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3726
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3731
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3735
165. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3736
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3737
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3738
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3739
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3742
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3744
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3745
168. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3746
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3747
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3751
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3752
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3754
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3755
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3758
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3759
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3761
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3762
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3765
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3766
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3768
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3769
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3771
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3776
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3777
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3781
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3782
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3785
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3788
180. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3789
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3790
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3791
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3792
181. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3793
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3794
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3795
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3796
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3799
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3800
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3803
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3804
184. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3805
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 3806
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3807
185. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3808
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3809
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3810
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3811
186. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3812
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3813
187. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3814
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7851893). 3815
188. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3816
189. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3818
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7835063). 3819
190. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3820
191. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3822
192. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3824
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3825
193. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3826
194. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3828
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3829
195. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3830
196. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3832
197. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3834
198. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3836
199. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3838
200. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3840
201. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3842
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3843
202. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3844
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3845
203. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3846
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3848
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3849
205. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3850
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3851
206. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3852
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3853
207. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3854
208. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3856
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3857
209. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3858
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3859
210. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3860
211. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3862
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3863
212. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3864
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3865
213. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3866
214. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3868
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3869
215. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3870
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3871
216. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3872
217. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3874
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3875
218. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3876
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3877
219. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3878
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3879
220. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3880
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3881
221. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3882
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3883
222. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3884
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3885
223. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3886
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3887
224. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3888
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3889
225. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3890
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3891
226. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3892
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3893
227. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3894
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3895
228. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3896
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3897
229. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3898
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3899
230. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3900
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3901
231. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3902
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3903
232. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3904
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3905
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3906
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3907
234. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3908
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3909
235. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3910
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3911
236. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3912
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3913
237. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3914
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3915
238. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3916
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3917
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3918
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3919
240. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3920
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3921
241. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3922
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3923
242. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3924
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3925
243. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3926
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3927
244. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3928
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3929
245. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3930
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3931
246. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3932
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3933
247. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3934
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3935
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3936
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3937
249. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3938
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3939
250. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3940
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3941
251. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3942
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3943
252. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3945
253. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3946
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3947
254. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3948
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3949
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3950
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3951
256. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3953
257. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3955
258. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3956
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3957
259. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3958
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3959
260. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3960
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3961
261. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3962
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3963
262. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3964
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3965
263. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3966
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3967
264. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3968
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3969
265. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3970
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3971
266. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3972
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3973
267. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3974
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3975
268. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3976
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3977
269. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3978
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3979
270. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3980
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3981
271. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3982
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3983
272. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3984
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3985
273. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3986
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3987
274. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3988
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3989
275. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3990
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3991
276. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3992
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3993
277. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3994
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3995
278. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3996
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3997
279. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3998
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3999
280. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4000
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4001
281. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4002
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4003
282. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4004
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4005
283. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4006
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4007
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4008
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4009
285. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4010
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4011
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4012
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4013
287. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4014
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4015
288. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4016
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4017
289. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4018
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4019
290. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4020
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4021
291. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4022
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4023
292. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4024
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4025
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4027
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Decompensation by Hyper Decompress of Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 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 Decompensation by Hyper Decompress of Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 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 Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of Eulerian-Cycle-

Preprint · April 2023

458 PUBLICATIONS 14,086 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 Decompensation By Hyper Decompress 2

Of Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer 3

With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 45

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

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 47

v-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 48

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

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

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

conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 53

is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 55

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

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

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

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

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

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