Re: ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Learning Environments (IDLE's)
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> 4.1.1 Compositional Closure of Dyadic Relations
>
> | Dyadic or binary relations generate only more of the same
> | under composition, leading to chains or to cycles but to
> | no more complex structures.
[1] Structures of any complexity can be composed of only dyadic relations.
When the arity is greater than 2, one uses a node, rather than an arrow to
represent the relationship.
I've shown this in several graphs, two of which are below:
http://robustai.net/mentography/arity.gif
http://robustai.net/mentography/conceptualDependency.gif
>Enough said.
Not at all. Can you show me, using traditional mathematics, what the
fallacy is in my statement [1] above? I have no problem with your obsession
with Triadic Relations which is exceeded only by my obsession with dyadic
ones; but if there is something bigger than our personal preferences here,
let us try to get to the crux of it. What would count to me would be a
single example of a situation and an element of that situation which cannot
be modeled or a behavior that cannot be obtained by a system unless it uses
a Tridic relation. Can you do that?
Seth Russell