|terminology: double-rooted DAG? firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-03)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? email@example.com (1998-03-06)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-06)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? email@example.com (Vladimir Alexiev) (1998-03-07)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-07)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? email@example.com (1998-03-08)|
|From:||Vladimir Alexiev <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||7 Mar 1998 22:41:17 -0500|
|Organization:||University of Alberta, Computing Science|
|In-reply-to:||email@example.com's message of 6 Mar 1998 16:48:42 -0500|
> :>1. It always has a defined root node (like a tree), and
> :>2. There is also a "tail" node
> Its called a "lattice". One of the definitions of a lattice is that it
> is a dag which contains both a least upper bound and greatest lower
> bound -- precisely what you have described.
No, because he never stated that his DAG is to be interpreted as a
partial order. In other words, a DAG is not necessarily transitive,
and we don't know if transitive edges are assumed, either.
The correct answer is: who cares :-) Now, if he had asked about some
algorithms that might be applicable to some problem on such a
structure, it would matter...
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.