# Re: Using the RM for ADTs

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:48:51 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <095c8b9d-eb68-4a39-acdf-942d5db07b2e_at_y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

> > Consider a node to which n components are connected and n is large.

*> > Using pairwise connections can either be exceedingly arbitrary (by
**> > only representing n-1 pairs) or it makes for enormous redundancy (by
**> > representing all n(n-1)/2 pairs).
**>
**> > I think this is much worse that the symmetry problem with resistors.
**>
**> I see your point, but I still think that assigning components artificial
**> identifiers is better: the unordered pairs could be replaced with or
**> preprocessed into a single set per node prior to the determination of
**> isomorphism. For example,
**>
**> {resistor1:lead1,capacitor2:lead1,transistor1:lead2}
**>
**> discribes a node that connects a resistor and a capacitor to the base of a
**> transistor.
**>
**> The above contains the same information as the unordered pairs
**>
**> {{resistor1:lead1,capacitor2:lead1},
**> {resistor1:lead1,transistor1:lead2}}
**>
**> without either the arbitrariness or the redundancy you seek to avoid.
*

I cannot tell which approach is better. Anyway, the point I find interesting is that in both cases nesting can ensure the schema meets the given requirements for logical equivalence of circuit values. Received on Fri Jul 03 2009 - 10:48:51 CEST