XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: jbb@notatt.com   
      
   On 12/29/2025 4:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/29/25 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> A DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) that is also a tree   
   >> is a specific type of DAG where each node (except   
   >> the single root) has exactly one parent, creating   
   >> a hierarchy with no cycles.   
   >>   
   >> When building an inheritance hierarchy knowledge   
   >> ontology There may be a single root node such as   
   >> {Thing} yet DAG Trees would exclude multiple   
   >> inheritance.   
   >>   
   >> You can still have a DAG with a single root node   
   >> and have multiple inheritance yet you cannot   
   >> call it a tree.   
   >>   
   >   
   > So, what "fact" of knowledge needs nothing to base itself on?   
   >   
   > "Thing" as a word, doesn't have a meaning by itself.   
   >   
   > This is your problem, you NEED to embed your "system" into something   
   > with givens to establish your "roots".   
   >   
   > And, the problem is "Natural Language", your favorite source, is just   
   > too inconsistant of a source.   
      
   If you are going to criticize that absurd idiot, at least comment on a   
   Freshmen stupidity. Think before you type. The circle jerk continues.   
   You both flunk.   
      
   While a tree is a DAG, not all DAG are trees.   
   --   
   Jeff Barnett   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)