Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A growing ruleset

2015-08-23 Thread Kerim Aydin



On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>   Root = own parent was on purpose.  Not sure if that screws up any
>   tree math assumptions, but I didn't see any harm in making it so.
> 
> 
>  Well, it screws up the fact that no node is its own ancestor. Actually, I 
> think "every node except the root has a parent, and no node is
> its own ancestor" is pretty much a complete definition of a rooted tree.

Yup, if I can bring in the term "ancestor" without having to define
it, this is the clean way to do it.  thx!






Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A growing ruleset

2015-08-22 Thread Tanner Swett
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Root = own parent was on purpose.  Not sure if that screws up any
> tree math assumptions, but I didn't see any harm in making it so.
>

 Well, it screws up the fact that no node is its own ancestor. Actually, I
think "every node except the root has a parent, and no node is its own
ancestor" is pretty much a complete definition of a rooted tree.

--Alphonse Machiavelli the Warrigal, was it?


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A growing ruleset

2015-08-21 Thread Kerim Aydin


On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Benjamin Schultz
>  wrote:
> > Otherwise the Root is its own Parent.
> 
> Makes sense if you envision it as a Unix filesystem.

Root = own parent was on purpose.  Not sure if that screws up any
tree math assumptions, but I didn't see any harm in making it so.

The real bug (feature?) I noticed is that, as written, two (or more) 
rules can be each others' parents and detached from the root.

-G. (remembering the Switch Switch).




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A growing ruleset

2015-08-21 Thread omd
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Benjamin Schultz
 wrote:
> Otherwise the Root is its own Parent.

Makes sense if you envision it as a Unix filesystem.


DIS: Re: BUS: A growing ruleset

2015-08-21 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
>
> Create the following Rule, The Olive Tree, Power=1:
>
>Every existing Rule (every Child) has an existing Rule as a
>Parent.  The lowest numbered existing Rule is the Root. The
>default parent for all children is the Root.
>

I think this needs an EXCEPT clause.  Something like:

The lowest numbered existing Rule is the Root.  Every existing Rule except
the Root has an existing Rule as a Parent, and is a Child of its Parent.
The default parent for all children is the Root.

Otherwise the Root is its own Parent.  And as this is intended to be a tree
growing upwards, one cannot go Below the Root.

OscarMeyr, making an obscure reference.