Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)

I was reading this thread out of interest, and now I'm feeling some
annoyance, because both Jefferson and Sai are flaming, and not
attempting to understand the other person's point of view.

mathematically, Sai is talking about a graphical system in the form of
a planar graph of meaning bearing nodes connected by links. Arbitrary
branching means that he is interested in graphs for which the degree
of any node is unbounded -- except by the communicational and
conceptual limitations and intent of the creator and reader.

Jefferson is assuming that the only proper way such a system can work
is as a space-filling network of regular adjacent convex cells, (a
convex tesselation of the plane) in which case 6 is the maximum
connectivity, when connection is defined by sharing an edge. This is
one way to create such a system of signs, in which case you can have a
per-cell branching factor of three (triangles), four (squares), or six
(hexagons). You could increase the options to include 1,2,5 if you
agree to allow some sides of cells not to be used.

While the notion of a space-filling notation is pretty cool, it's
surely not the _only_ sensible way to define a 2D language. Planarity
may be a problem for graphs, and the people may have very restricted
practical ability (in my experience) to visually parse many "jump
connectors" when representing non-planar graphs on the plane

The desire for definition is good, but must be moderated by a
willingness to help frame it in terms that others can understand.

The desire to point to the not-yet defined is also good, but must be
moderated by willingness to work out the details collaboratively with
the interested without dismissing their detail-orientation as
irrelevant.

I hope that by laying out the two techniques envisioned, it's clear
why the claim "I can have as many connections to another semantic
point as I need can be true for one notation (graphs of links and
nodes), and false for another (convex tessellation of the plane).

   -- David

Replies