Re: Canonical DB
From: J M Davitt <jdavitt_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:17:55 GMT
Message-ID: <7SRmg.65960$mh.55171_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
>
>
> Uh... So in RM there just *aren't* graphs or trees?
>
>
> The cheapest path between two nodes through a network graph?
Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 15:17:55 CEST
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:17:55 GMT
Message-ID: <7SRmg.65960$mh.55171_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2006-06-21 18:47:03 -0500, mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> said:
>
>> Robert Martin wrote: >> >>> mAsterdam said: >>> >>>> >>>> And I asked "Which (or which types of) >>>> computations are easier [with a >>>> navigational structure]?" >>> >>> >>> Things like tree searches, graph walks, etc. >> >> >> No, tree searches and graph walks are things >> you *need* to do (and specify) when all you have >> is navigational structures. They are part of their cost.
>
>
> Uh... So in RM there just *aren't* graphs or trees?
>> >> Now where is the benefit - what are you computing: >> Which (or which types of) computations are easier >> with a navigational structure?
>
>
> The cheapest path between two nodes through a network graph?
Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 15:17:55 CEST