6 ms·
> Since all structures are Trees [...] Wat. No, they're not. Counter-example: triangles. Triangles are not trees. I did, however, notice that you've been spam
by adwn 7y ago
> Since all structures are Trees [...]
Wat. No, they're not. Counter-example: triangles. Triangles are not trees.
I did, however, notice that you've been spamming all kinds of threads with posts along the lines of "Apropos topic X, Tree Notation will totally revolutionize X. Follow tree-notation-URL to stay up-to-date with Tree Notation, once [if] we ever find a way to explain what makes Tree Notation so different from other notations!"
(where X is a random topic which is mostly or completely unrelated to Tree Notation)
It's quite annoying.
- grenoire 7y agoThe OP reinvented S-expressions and is overly dramatic about it.
- breck 7y agoWe perfected S-expressions. There is a big difference.
- breck 7y agoYes, triangles are trees. Please list your definition of a triangle. > where X is a random topic which is mostly or completely unrelated to Tree Notation) What is binary notation related to? Is it related to medicine? It is related to automobiles? Is it related to deep space? Is it related to food? Is it related to government? Try to do any of those things without binary notation. This is a big idea. A very infrequent big idea.
- klyrs 7y agoIn graph theory, a tree is a cycle-free graph and a triangle is a cycle of length 3. Ergo, a triangle is not a tree. So what are your definitions of tree and triangle?
- breck 7y ago> In graph theory, a tree is a cycle-free graph and a triangle is a cycle of length 3. Ergo, a triangle is not a tree. Mathematics is not a rigorous language, so I'll put the crux of my argument in Tree Notation, which is a rigorous language: betterGraphTheoryLanguage nodeCell cycleNode triangleNode extends cycleNode cells nodeCell nodeCell nodeCell There you go, a triangle is a cycle with length 3. Ergo, a triangle is a tree. typo fix: changed Trees to Tree Notation.
- klyrs 7y ago> Mathematics is not a rigorous language Uh huh. Great start... > I'll put the crux of my argument in Trees, which is a rigorous language Interesting how you're overloading the word "tree" in this context. You're presenting a definition in the format of a tree. And concluding that the resulting object is itself a tree. It's like saying that swords are made of wood, and proving it by carving the definition of a sword into a piece of wood. This is quackery. Graphs, and trees, have perfectly rigorous definitions. They've been defined in a plurality of rigorous languages. Your "definition" doesn't even mention edges, unless they're implied by "cycleNode" somehow; in either case it appears that your "better" graph theory only contains a single graph of any given order. Graph theorists expect a few more than that.
- breck 7y agoJust because Mathematics is one of the most rigorous languages we have, does mean it is rigorous. It would be like saying Roman Numerals are not a great language for math. If I say that today no one blinks an eye. But if I said that 2k years ago people would say "Uh huh. Great start...". Let me define a "rigorous" language. A rigorous langauge is one which can be defined completely in a single document starting with 0 and 1 and working it's way all the way up to whatever it is you want to prove. > Graphs, and trees, have perfectly rigorous definitions. They've been defined in a plurality of rigorous languages. If you can provide a link to a single page that starts with 0 and 1 and builds all the way up to defining "graphs and trees" and how a "triangle is not a tree", then I will agree with you. > Interesting how you're overloading the word "tree" in this context. Sorry, that was a typo, I meant to write Tree Notation. I'll fix.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]