Cyaegha

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Cyaegha 14y ago

   For that construction to work, these 'virtual' nodes need to exist in the poset. Your poset is just the vertex set of your DAG ordered by reachability, so they don't exist. I think your intuition is good, but the mathematics just doesn't ad
2. 2.▲
   by Cyaegha 14y ago

   All finite lattices are posets, but not all finite posets are lattices, so I stand by the usage. Yes obviously, but nowhere is it clear that you actually have a lattice of any kind. Specifically, I see no reason why pruning DAGs of unused
3. 3.▲
   by Cyaegha 14y ago

   You state that: A lattice is a partial ordering with a single unique "top element" (least upper bound) and a single unique "bottom element" (greatest lower bound). Every node in the lattice is reachable by following some directed path from
4. 4.▲
   by Cyaegha 14y ago

   He has additional ideas - the problem is they're mostly nonsense. For example, if you look at the page where he tries to explain what he means by program lattices and lattice based computing, he gets the definition of a lattice wrong! (desp
5. 5.▲
   by Cyaegha 14y ago

   Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that most of this guy's ideas are either a bit half-baked or simply flat out wrong. Consider the argument for his proposed language being Turing complete on the flow manifesto page. He claims that this fo