XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/31/25 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/31/2025 8:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> On 12/30/2025 05:05 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Actually a DAG has at least one node with no edges-in,   
   >>> so it would be a root node in a tree.   
   >>>   
   >>> Otherwise it would have cycles and not be a-cyclic.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I just examining this the structure of the body   
   >> of general knowledge seems to be a tree.   
   >>   
   >> My initial design for a universal type hierarchy   
   >> knowledge ontology has two most basic types   
   >> {things} and {relations between things}   
   >>   
   >   
   > And what is the "root" node of knowledge that has meaning without any   
   > other node?   
   >   
      
   Objects of thought.   
      
   > Note, a "type hierarchy" doesn't contain all knowledge, so doesn't   
   > qualify for you goal.   
      
   It can contain every expression:   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
      
   So that it can be better understood it is limited   
   to the finite set of general knowledge.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)