3 ms·
I’m not seeing how DAGs are distinct from forests (sets of trees) or outlines. They seem topologically equivalent.
by zeckalpha 7y ago
I’m not seeing how DAGs are distinct from forests (sets of trees) or outlines. They seem topologically equivalent.
- wolfgang42 7y agoDAGs can have things that would form cycles if they weren't directed, like diamond shapes.
- seanhunter 7y agoWhich this can also have. One concrete action could contribute to two intermediate goals which in turn could both contribute to one parent high-level goal (giving a diamond).
- DaveWM 7y agoThat's exactly right. Each intention can have multiple parents, which I believe makes the topology a DAG. The only constraints are that you must have exactly 1 root node, each node must have at least 1 parent (apart from the root node), and that you can't have cycles.
- stewbrew 7y agoOk, I missed that.
- tejtm 7y agodags are trees that can share non-root nodes
- swiley 7y agoLevel n nodes can have arcs to level n-m nodes provided they aren’t ancestors. In addition nodes can have multiple parents.
- zeckalpha 7y agoSo can trees. File systems do this all the time.
- swiley 7y agoMost file systems aren’t trees, most are some more flexible graph. You can get away thinking of them like trees as long as you’re not writing a correct program. (see also: links, bind mounts) Trees have a formal definition that precludes this, that’s why we call them trees and not graphs.