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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370202186
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super
Decompensation
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
459 PUBLICATIONS 14,086 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Fuzzy Logic View project
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures 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 In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As 3
Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEulerian-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
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
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 “Neutrosophic 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 “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 255
going 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 Neutrosophic 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
Neutrosophic 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 a 277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 278
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 279
either the optimal SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition or the Neutrosophic 280
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 281
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 282
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 283
since it’s 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 “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” 297
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 298
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 299
this 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 Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 311
are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 320
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 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”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”, 326
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. 327
There are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make 328
sense 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 Neutrosophic 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
(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
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
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 615
Extreme SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 618
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 619
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 620
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 628
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 676
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 677
Forms 678
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 679
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V 681
is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 682
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 683
probability of A. 684
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 685
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 687
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 688
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 689
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 690
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 691
criteria 692
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 693
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any k-function Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 695
like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 696
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 697
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 698
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 699
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 701
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 702
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 703
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 704
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic number is called 706
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 707
Crossing criteria 708
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 709
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let m and n 710
propose special Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 711
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 712
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 713
Neutrosophic independently with probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and set 714
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 715
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 716
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
717
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 718
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a 719
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 720
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 721
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 722
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 723
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 724
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 725
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 726
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 727
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 728
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 729
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a 731
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 732
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 733
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 734
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 735
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 736
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 737
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
738
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 739
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 740
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 741
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 742
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 743
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 744
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 745
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 746
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 747
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 748
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 749
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 750
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 751
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. 752
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 753
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 754
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 755
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 756
Proof. 757
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 759
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 760
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special SuperHyperGraph 762
in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 763
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 764
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 765
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 766
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 767
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 768
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 769
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 770
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 771
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: 772
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 773
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 774
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 775
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 776
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 777
stability number at most k. 778
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 779
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 781
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 782
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 783
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 785
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 786
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a Neutrosophic 788
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 789
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
790
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 792
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 793
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 794
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and 796
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 797
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 798
when Xn = 0. 799
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 801
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 802
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 803
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 804
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. As in the proof of related 806
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 807
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 809
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 810
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 811
or 812
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 813
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 815
straightforward. 816
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 817
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 819
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 820
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 821
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 822
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 823
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 824
S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 826
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 827
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 828
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a 830
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 831
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 832
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 833
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 835
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 837
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 838
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 839
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 840
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 841
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 842
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 843
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 844
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 845
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 846
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 847
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 848
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 , V1 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z4.
849
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 852
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 853
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 854
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 855
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 856
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 857

excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 858

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 , V1 }}.
= z4.
859
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 862

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , V1 }}.
= z4.
863



= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
867


= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
871

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
875


= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
879

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



883

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
887

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
891

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
895

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
899

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
903

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
907

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
911

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
915

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
919

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
923

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{Eii=112 }}.
= z 12 .
= {{V Eii=112 }}.
|{V Ei }|
=z i=112 .
927

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
931

(16.3)

= {{E1 , E2 }}.
= z2.
= {{V1 , V2 , {R}, {M6 }, {L6 }, {F }, {P }, {J}, {M }, V3 , V1 }}.
= z 11 .
935

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
939
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 940
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 941
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other 942
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 943
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 944
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 945
amount of them. 946
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 947
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 948
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 949
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic 950
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 951
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 952
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, minus 953
all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 954
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 955
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 956
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 957
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 958
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 959
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in 960
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 961
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 962
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 963
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with the least Neutrosophic 964
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 965
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 966
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 967
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, 968
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 969
type-result-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality of 970

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-Eulerian-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 971
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 972
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 973
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 974
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 975
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 976
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 977
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 978
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition decorates

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections
so as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to
have the maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
perfect Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 979
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 980
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 981
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 982
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 983
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic

R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
but with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality amid those
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 984
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
985
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 986
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 987
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 988
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 989
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 990
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in 991
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 992
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 993
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic 994
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 995
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 996
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 997
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 998
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 999
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 1000
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 1001
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1002
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 1003
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1004
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1005
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 1006
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition where 1007
the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1008
literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The SuperHyperNotions of 1009
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1010
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1011
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1012
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1013
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1014
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1015
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1016
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1017
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1018
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1019
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types 1020
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1021
Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic 1022
SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1023
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1024
embedded Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior 1025
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1026
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1027
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1028
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1029
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1030
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with the exclusion 1031
of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1032
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with 1033
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1034
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. To sum them up, in 1035
a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1036
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1037
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1038
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 1039
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique 1040
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1041
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, minus all 1042
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1043
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition has two titles. a 1044
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1045
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1046
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with 1047
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1048
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1049
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1050
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decompositions for all Neutrosophic 1051
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1052
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1053
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, again and more in the operations of 1054
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decompositions acted on the all possible 1055
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1056
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1057
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1058
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decompositions. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1059
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1060
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1061
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1062
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1063
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1064
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1065
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1066
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1067
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1068
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1069

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1070
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class


1071
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1072

1073

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1074
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1075
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1076
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1077
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the 1078
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” since “Neutrosophic 1079
Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” happens “Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” in a 1080
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1081
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic 1082
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1083
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1084
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1085
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition”, 1086
and “Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” are up. 1087
Thus, let 1088
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1089
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1090
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the new terms 1091
are up. 1092
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1093
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1094
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1095
And with go back to initial structure, 1096
GNeutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class


1097
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1098

1099

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1101
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1103
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1104
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1105
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1106
are coming up. 1107
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1108
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1109
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1110
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1111
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1112
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is related to the Neutrosophic

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic

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

R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1113
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1114
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1115
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1116
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an 1117
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1118
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1119
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1120
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1121
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1122
“Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” 1123
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1124
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1125
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1126
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1127
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1128
quasi-R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1129
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1130
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1131
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1132
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1134
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1135
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1136
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1137
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1138
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1139
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1140
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1142
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1143
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1144
R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1145
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1147
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1148
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1149
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1150
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1151
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1153
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1157
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1158
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1159
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE is up. The obvious 1160
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1161
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1164
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1165
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1166
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1167
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1169
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1170
Neutrosophic R-Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1171
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1173
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1174
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1175
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1176
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1177
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither empty 1178
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1179
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1180
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. The 1181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1182

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Eulerian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1183
. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1184
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1185

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1186
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1187
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1189
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1190
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1191
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1192
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1193
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1194
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two 1195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1197

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1198
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1199
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1200
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1201

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1202
. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1204

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1205
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1206
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1207
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1208
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an 1209
Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1210
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1213
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1214
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1216

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


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1218
, not:

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1220

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1221
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1222
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1223
“Neutrosophic Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition ” 1224
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1225
Neutrosophic ,
is only and only 1227

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1228
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1229
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1230
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1231
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1232
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1233
Then 1234

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1235
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1236
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1237
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1238
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 1239
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1240
The latter is straightforward. 1241
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1242
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1243
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1244
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1245
Then 1246

= {{Ei ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |EN SHG | .
= {{VEi ∈EN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG |.
1247
(5.2)
Proof. Let 1248
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1249
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1250
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1251

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1255
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1256
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1257
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1259
Then 1260

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1261
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

1262
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1263
There’s a new way to redefine as 1264

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1268
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1269
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1270
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1271
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1272
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1274
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1275

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1276
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
1277
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1278
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1279

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1282
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1283
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. There 1284
are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1285
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1286
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1287
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1288
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1289
solution 1290
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1292
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1293
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1294
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1295
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1296
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1297
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1298
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1299

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example
(16.11)
Proof. Let 1300
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
1301
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 1303

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1306
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1307
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. There 1308
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1309
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1311
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1312
solution 1314
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1316
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1317
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1318
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1319
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1320
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1321
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1322
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1323
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1324

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1325
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1326
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1328

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1331
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1332
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. The 1333
unique embedded SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition proposes some longest 1334
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1335
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1338
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1339
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1340
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1341
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1343
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1344
For the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, and 1345
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1346
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1347
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1348
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1349
N eutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEulerian − Cycle − Decomposition
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEulerian−Cycle−Decomposition. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1350
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1351
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1352
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1353
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and 1354
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition coincide. 1355
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1357
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a 1358
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1361
strongest SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1362
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1364
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1365
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is its SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1366
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1367
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1368
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. 1369
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is its SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 1370
and reversely. 1371
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1372
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1373
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1374
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1375
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1376
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1380
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1381
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1383
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1384
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1385
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1386
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1387
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1391
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1392
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1394
is 1395
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1396
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1397
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1398
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1399
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1400
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1401
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1402
∅ is 1403
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1404
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1405
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1406
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1407
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1408
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1409
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1410
independent SuperHyperSet is 1411
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1412
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1413
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1414
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1415
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1416
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1417
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1418
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1419
a maximal 1420
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1421
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1422
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1423
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1424
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1425
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1426
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1427
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1428
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1429
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1430
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1431
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1432
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1433
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1434
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1435
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1436
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1438
number of 1439
(i) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1440
(ii) : the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1441
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1442
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1443
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1444
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1445
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1446
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1447
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1449
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1450
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1451
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1452
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1453
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1454
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1455
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1456
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1459
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1460
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1461
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1462
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1466
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1467
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1468
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1471
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1472
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1473
is a 1474
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1478
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1479
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1480
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1483
number of 1484
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1488
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1489
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1490
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1491
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1492
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1493
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1495
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1496
(iv) : SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1500
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1501
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1502
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1503
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1504
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1505
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1506
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1507
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1511
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1513
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1516
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1517
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1521
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1522
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1523
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1525
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1527
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1528
of a dual 1529
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1533
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1534
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1535
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1537
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1538
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1539
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1545
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1547
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1548
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1549
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1550
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1551
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1552
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1553
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1554
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1555
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1556
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1557
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1558
(i) S is SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition set; 1559
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1560
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1561
Then 1562
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1563
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1564
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1565
which is connected. Then 1566
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1567
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1568
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1569
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1570
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1572
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1573
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1574
a dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1575
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1576
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1577
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1579
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1580
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1581
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1582
dual SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1583
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1584
Then 1585
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1586
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1588
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1589
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1590
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1591
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1593
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1596
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1597
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1598
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1600
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1601
(ii) Γ = 1; 1602
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1603
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1604
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1606
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1607
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1608
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1609
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1610
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1611
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1612
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1613
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1614
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1616
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1617
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1618
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1620
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1621
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1623

bnc ; 1624
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1625
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1627
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1628
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1629
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1630
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1631
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1632
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1633
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1634
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1635
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1636
SuperHyperSet. Then 1637
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1638
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1639
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1640

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1641
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1642
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1644
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1645
SuperHyperSet. Then 1646
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1647
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1648
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1649

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1650
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1651
Then following statements hold; 1654
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1655
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1656
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1657
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1658
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1659
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1660
Then following statements hold; 1662
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1663
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1664
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1665
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1666
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1667
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1668
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1669
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1670
statements hold; 1671
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1672
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1673
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1674
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1676
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1678
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1679
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1680
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1681
statements hold; 1682
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1683
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1685
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1687
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1689
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1690
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1692
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1693
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1694
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1696
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1698
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1701
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1703
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1704
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1705
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1707
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1709
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1710
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1712
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1714
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1715
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1716
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1718
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1720
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1723
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1725
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1726
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1727
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1729
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1731
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1734
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1735
Neutrosophic Recognition 1736
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure out 1737
what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of this 1738
Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1739
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1740
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1741
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1742
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1743
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1744
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1745
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1746
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1747
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1748
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1749
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1750
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1751
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened 1752
and what’s done. 1753
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which 1754
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. 1755
The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1756
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 1757
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1758
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1759
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition or the Neutrosophic 1760
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1761
SuperHyperModels. 1762
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1763
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1764
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1765
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1766
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1767
featured. 1768
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1769
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1770
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1771
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1772
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1773
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1775
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1776
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1777
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1778
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1779
featured. 1780
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1781
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1782
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1783
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1784
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1785
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1787
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1788
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1789
The SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1790
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s 1791
Recognitions”. 1792
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1793
recognitions? 1794
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1795
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1796
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1797
compute them? 1798
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1799
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1800
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1801
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1802
they’re based on SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, are there else? 1803
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1804
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1805
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1806
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1807
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1808
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1809
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1810
highlighted. 1811
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1812
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1813
SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1814
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1815
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1816
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, finds the convenient 1817
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 1818
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1819
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1820
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1821
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1822
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1823
the SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1824
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1825
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the 1826
results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1827
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of 1828
this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups 1829
of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1830
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1831
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1832
called “ SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1833
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1834
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperEulerian-Cycle-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1835
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1836
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1837
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1838
Forms 1839
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1840
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1844
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1845
0 0
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 1846
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1847
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1848
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1849
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1850
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1851
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1852
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1853
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1854
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1855
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1856
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1857
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1860
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1862
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1863
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1864
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1865
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1867
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1868
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1871
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1872
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1875
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1876
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1877
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1878
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1879
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1880
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1881
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1882
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1883
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1884
Extreme coefficient; 1885
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1886
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1887
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1889
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1890
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1891
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1895
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1896
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1897
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1902
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1904
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1905
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1909
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1912
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1913
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1918
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1919
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1921
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1923
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1932
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1933
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1937
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1938
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1939
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1940
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1941
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1942
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1943
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1944
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1947
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1948
SuperHyperDuality. 1953


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2016
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2017
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 2018
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 2022
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2026
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2027
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2028
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 2029
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2040
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2041
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2051
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2054
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 2059
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2060
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2061
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2063
solution 2066
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2073

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2076
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2077

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2083
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2088
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2096
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2099
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2100
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2101

∃!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 2106
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2107
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2114
Forms 2116
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2117
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2121
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2122
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2123
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2124
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2126
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2127
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2128
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2129
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2131
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2132
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2133
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2134
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2137
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2138
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2139
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2144
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2145
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2148
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2152
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2153
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2154
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2155
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2156
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2161
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2166
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2167
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2168
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2172
coefficient; 2173
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2174
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2177
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2178
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2181
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2182
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2189
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2190
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2198
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2200
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2209
coefficient. 2210
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2214
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2215
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2216
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2217
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2218
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2219
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2220
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2221
SuperHyperJoin. 2222
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2296
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2300
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2304

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

.
Proof. Let 2307
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2318
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2319

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2329
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2332
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 2337
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2338
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2339
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2341
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2342
solution 2344
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2351

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2354
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2355

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2359
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2360
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2361
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2366
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2374

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

.
Proof. Let 2377
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2378

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2382
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2383
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2384
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2385
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2392
Forms 2394
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2395
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2399
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2400
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2401
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2402
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2404
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2405
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2406
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2407
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2409
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2410
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2411
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2412
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2415
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2417
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2420
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2422
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2423
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2430
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2431
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2432
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2433
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2439
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2441
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2442
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2450
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2452
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2457
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2459
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2460
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2467
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2468
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2476
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2478
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2487
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2492
SuperHyperPerfect. 2500
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2574
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2578
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2582
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2585
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2596
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2597

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2607
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2610
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 2615
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2616
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2617
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2618
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2619
solution 2622
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2629

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2632
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2633

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2637
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2638
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2639
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2644
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2652
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2655

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2656

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2660
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2661
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2662
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2663
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2670
Forms 2672
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2673
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2677
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2678
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2679
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2680
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2682
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2683
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2684
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2685
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2687
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2688
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2689
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2690
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2693
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2695
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2700
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2701
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2703
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2708
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2709
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2710
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2717
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2719
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2728
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2730
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2737
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2738
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2745
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2746
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2754
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2756
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2765
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2770
SuperHyperTotal. 2778
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2852
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2856
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2860
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2863
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2874
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2875
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2885
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2888
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2893
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2894
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2897
solution 2900
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2907

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2910
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2911

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2915
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2916
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2922
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2930
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2933
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2934

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2938
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2939
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2940
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2941
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2948
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2949
Forms 2950
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2951
SuperHyperConnected). 2952
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2956
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2957
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2958
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2959
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2960
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2961
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2963
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2964
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2965
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2966
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2967
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2968
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2970
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2971
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2972
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2973
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2976
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2978
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2979
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2980
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2981
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2983
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2984
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2987
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2988
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2991
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2992
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2993
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2994
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2995
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2997
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2998
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2999
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 3000
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 3001
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3002
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 3003
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 3004
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3005
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 3008
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3011
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3012
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3013
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3016
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3017
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3018
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3020
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3021
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3024
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3025
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3028
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3029
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3032
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3035
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3038
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3040
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3043
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3046
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3049
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3050
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3054
SuperHyperConnected. 3062
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3136
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3140
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3144
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3147
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3158
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3159
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3169
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3172
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3177
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3178
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3181
solution 3184
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3191
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3194
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3199
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3200
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3206
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3214
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3217
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3219

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3222
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3223
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3224
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3225
17 Background 3233
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3234
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3235
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3236
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3237
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3238
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3239
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3240
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3241
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3242
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3243
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3244
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3245
results based on initial background. 3246
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3247
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3248
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3249
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3250
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3251
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3252
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3253
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3254
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3255
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3256
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3257
SuperHyperNumbers. 3258
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3259
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3260
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3261
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3262
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3263
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3264
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3265
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3266
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3267
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3268
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3269
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3270
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3271
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3272
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3273
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3274
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3275
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3276
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3277
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3278
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3279
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3280
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3281
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3282
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3283
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3284
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3285
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3286
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3287
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3288
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3289
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3290
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3291
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3292
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3293
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3294
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3295
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3296
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3297
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3298
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3299
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3300
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3301
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3302
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3303
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3304
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3305
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3306
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3307
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3308
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3309
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3310
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3311
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3312
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3313
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3314
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3315
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3316
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3317
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3318
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3319
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3320
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3321
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [155] by Henry 3322
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3323
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3324
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [156] by Henry Garrett 3325
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3326
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3327
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [157] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3328
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3329
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3330
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [158] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3331
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3332
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [161] by 3333
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3334
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3335
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [162] by Henry 3336
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3337
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3338
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [165] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3339
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3340
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [168] by Henry 3341
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3342
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3343
in Ref. [169] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3344
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3345
Ref. [170] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3346
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3347
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [171] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3348
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3349
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [172] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3350
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3351
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [173] by Henry Garrett 3352
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3353
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [184] by Henry 3354
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3355
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3356
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [185] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–185], there 3357
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3358
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [186–291]. 3359
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3360
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [292, 293]. 3361
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3362
proposed as book in Ref. [280] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3363
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3364
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3365
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3366
theory. 3367
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3368
proposed as book in Ref. [281] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3369
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3370
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3371
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3372
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3373
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3374
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3375
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3376
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3377
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3378
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–185] alongside scientific 3379
research books at [186–291]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3380
of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [292, 293]. 3381
References 3382
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3383
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3384
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3385
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3386
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3387
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3388
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3389
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3390
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3391
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3392
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3393
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3394
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3395
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3396
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3397
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3398
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3399
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3400
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3401
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3402
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3403
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3404
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3405
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3406
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3407
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3408
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3409
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3410
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3411
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3412
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3413
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3414
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3415
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3416
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3417
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3418
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3419
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3420
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3421
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3422
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3423
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3424
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3425
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3426
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3427
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3428
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3429
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3430
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3431
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3432
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3433
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3434
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3435
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3436
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3437
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3438
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3439
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3440
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3441
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3442
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3443
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3444
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3445
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3446
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3447
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3448
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3449
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3450
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3451
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3452
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3453
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3454
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3455
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3456
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3458
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3462
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3463
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3464
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3465
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3466
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3467
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3468
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3469
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3470
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3471
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3472
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3473
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3474
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3475
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3476
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3477
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3478
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3479
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3480
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3481
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3482
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3483
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853867). 3484
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3485
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3486
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853922). 3487
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3489
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7851519). 3490
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3491
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3492
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3495
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3496
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3497
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3498
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3501
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3502
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3504
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3507
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3510
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3513
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7819531). 3514
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3516
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3519
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3520
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3522
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3523
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3525
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3526
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3528
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3531
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3534
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3535
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3537
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3540
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3541
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3542
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3544
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3545
10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3546
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3548
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3549
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3550
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3551
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3554
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3557
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3558
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3560
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3561
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3563
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3566
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3569
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3572
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3573
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3575
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3578
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3581
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3584
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3587
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3589
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3590
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3591
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3593
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3596
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3597
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3598
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3599
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3600
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3602
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3605
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3608
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3609
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3611
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3612
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3614
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3615
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3616
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3617
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3618
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3620
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3623
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3626
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3627
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3629
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3632
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3634
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3636
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3638
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3640
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3641
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3644
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3646
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3650
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3652
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3654
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3656
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3658
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3659
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3662
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3663
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3665
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3668
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3670
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3672
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3674
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3675
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3677
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3679
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3681
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3683
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3684
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3685
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3686
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3687
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3689
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3690
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3691
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3692
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3695
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3697
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3698
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3701
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3703
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3704
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3707
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3709
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3711
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3713
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3714
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3715
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3716
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3719
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3720
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3721
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3722
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3725
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3726
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3727
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3728
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3731
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3732
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3733
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3734
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3737
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3738
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3739
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3740
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3743
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3744
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3745
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3746
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3748
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3749
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3752
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3753
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3754
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3755
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3758
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3759
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3760
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3761
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3764
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3766
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3767
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3770
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3772
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3773
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3775
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3776
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3779
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3782
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3784
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3785
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3787
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3788
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3790
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3791
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3792
128. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3793
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3794
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3795
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3796
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3797
130. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3799
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3800
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3801
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3802
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3803
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3804
132. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3805
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3806
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3807
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3808
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3811
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3812
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3815
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3816
135. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3817
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3819
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3820
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3823
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3824
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3827
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3828
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3829
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3830
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3831
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3832
139. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3833
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3834
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3835
140. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3836
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3837
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3838
141. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3839
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3840
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3841
142. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3842
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3843
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3844
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3845
143. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3846
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3847
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3848
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3849
144. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3850
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3851
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3852
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3853
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3854
145. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3855
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3856
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3857
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3858
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3859
146. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3860
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3861
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3862
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3863
147. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3864
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3865
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3866
148. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3867
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3868
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3870
149. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3871
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3872
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3873
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3874
150. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3875
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3876
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3877
151. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3878
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3879
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3880
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3881
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3882
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3883
152. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3884
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3885
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3886
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3887
153. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3888
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3889
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3890
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3891
154. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3892
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3893
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3894
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3895
155. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3896
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3897
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3898
156. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3899
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3900
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3901
157. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3903
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3904
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3905
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3906
158. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3907
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3908
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3909
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3910
159. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3911
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3912
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3913
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3914
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3916
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3917
161. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3918
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3919
162. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3921
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3922
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3923
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3928
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3932
165. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3933
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3934
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3935
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3936
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3939
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3941
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3942
168. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3943
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3944
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3948
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3949
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3951
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3952
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3955
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3956
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3958
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3959
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3962
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3963
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3965
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3966
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3968
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3973
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3974
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3978
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3979
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3982
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3985
180. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3986
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3987
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3988
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3989
181. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3990
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3991
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3992
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3993
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3996
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4000
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4001
184. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 4002
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 4003
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4004
185. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4005
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4006
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4007
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4008
186. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4009
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4010
187. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4011
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7851893). 4012
188. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4013
189. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4015
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7835063). 4016
190. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4017
191. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4019
192. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4021
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4022
193. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4023
194. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4025
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4026
195. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4027
196. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4029
197. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4031
198. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4033
199. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4035
200. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4037
201. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4039
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4040
202. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4041
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4042
203. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4043
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4045
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4046
205. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4047
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4048
206. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4049
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4050
207. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4051
208. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4053
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4054
209. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4055
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4056
210. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4057
211. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4059
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4060
212. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4061
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4062
213. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4063
214. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4065
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4066
215. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4067
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4068
216. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4069
217. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4071
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4072
218. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4073
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4074
219. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4075
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4076
220. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4077
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4078
221. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4079
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4080
222. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4081
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4082
223. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4083
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4084
224. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4085
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4086
225. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4087
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4088
226. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4089
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4090
227. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4091
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4092
228. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4093
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4094
229. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4095
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4096
230. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4097
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4098
231. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4099
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4100
232. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4101
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4102
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4103
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4104
234. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4105
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4106
235. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4107
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4108
236. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4109
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4110
237. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4111
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4112
238. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4113
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4114
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4115
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4116
240. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4117
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4118
241. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4119
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4120
242. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4121
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4122
243. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4123
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4124
244. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4125
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4126
245. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4127
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4128
246. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4129
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4130
247. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4131
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4132
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4133
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4134
249. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4135
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4136
250. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4137
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4138
251. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4139
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4140
252. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4141
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4142
253. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4143
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4144
254. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4145
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4146
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4147
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4148
256. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4149
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4150
257. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4151
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4152
258. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4153
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4154
259. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4155
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4156
260. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4157
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4158
261. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4159
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4160
262. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4161
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4162
263. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4163
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4164
264. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4165
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4166
265. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4167
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4168
266. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4169
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4170
267. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4171
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4172
268. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4173
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4174
269. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4175
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4176
270. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4177
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4178
271. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4179
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4180
272. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4181
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4182
273. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4183
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4184
274. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4185
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4186
275. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4187
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4188
276. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4189
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4190
277. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4191
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4192
278. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4193
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4194
279. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4195
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4196
280. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4197
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4198
281. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4199
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4200
282. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4201
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4202
283. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4203
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4204
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4205
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4206
285. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4207
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4208
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4209
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4210
287. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4211
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4212
288. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4213
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4214
289. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4215
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4216
290. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4217
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4218
291. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4219
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4220
292. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4221
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4222
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4223
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4224
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · April 2023

459 PUBLICATIONS 14,086 CITATIONS

On Fuzzy Logic View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperEulerian-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

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 62