Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,281 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Ross Finlayson    |
|    Re: Directed Acyclic Graph's with roots    |
|    31 Dec 25 22:59:23    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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}   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca