Re: FURTHER Clarif. re inside/contents

[Ted Nelson <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>]

So I sez, and then you reply,

>> The expected structures is: 
>> d.contents \/   d.inside =>  ("|" here means "no connection)
>> A a
>>    b
>>    c
>>  B d
>>    e
>>    f
>> 
>> where for some reason (probably visual convenience in
>>  some context), A *might* be connected to B, abd c to d,
>>  but those connections have no system-supported connection.
>
>Maybe I misunderstand your illustration, but if c and d are connected,
>won't the system interpret d, e, and f as part of the contents of A?

Thought I said it Implicitly !-)  Answer is that the system
 *must stop* thinking the further items posward on d.contents
 are on the list *when it encounters the countervailing B*.
 Like "backing off when you see you hadn't noticed her boyfriend."

>(I usually write `c-d' as an abbreviation for `c and d are connected'.)

Not sure how that works when you're indicating vertical connection.

Best, Ted


At 12:39 AM 10/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> "Inside" is transitive-- (could it be otherwise?)--
>
>I'm not sure, but I agree that it would have to be a rather bizarre
>counterexample. 
>
>> Now, the problem with only having that one dimension
>>  to represent containment is that in this model,
>>  each thing can only contain *one other* thing,
>>  like nesting Russian dolls.
>
>That is a persistent problem with the ZigZag model.
>
>I am compiling a list of examples where that property is inconvenient
>or clumsy; this was one of them; the male-female example I mailed
>earlier is another.  
>
>When I first understood how inside-contents worked, I said, ``Oh, what
>an awful hack.''  If this one hack is the only one, that is not too
>bad.  But sometimes when you have a hack it bespeaks a very deep flaw
>that will have to be patched over and over again with hack after hack.
>That's my biggest worry about ZigZag.
>
>Of course, I'm not suggestion that you change it; the property is
>fundamental to ZigZag and I think it's important to find out whether
>it works or not.
>
>>   A design choice is whether to have some title, or just the first item,
>>  at the top of the list;
>
>Yes.  That's precisely why I was asking about B in this picture:
>> >> >        A - B - C      +--> +d.inside
>> >> >        |   |   |      |
>> >> >        X   B1  C1     v +d.contents
>
>
>> The expected structures is: 
>> d.contents \/   d.inside =>  ("|" here means "no connection)
>> A a
>>    b
>>    c
>>  B d
>>    e
>>    f
>> 
>> where for some reason (probably visual convenience in
>>  some context), A *might* be connected to B, abd c to d,
>>  but those connections have no system-supported connection.
>
>Maybe I misunderstand your illustration, but if c and d are connected,
>won't the system interpret d, e, and f as part of the contents of A?
>
>(I usually write `c-d' as an abbreviation for `c and d are connected'.)
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Theodor Holm Nelson, Visiting Professor of Environmental Information
 Keio University, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Fujisawa, Japan
 Home Fax from USA: 011-81-466-46-7368  (If in Japan, 0466-46-7368)
Professorial home page http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/ 
_____________________________________________________
Permanent: Project Xanadu, 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965
 Tel. 415/ 331-4422, fax 415/332-0136  
http://www.xanadu.net
PERMANENT E-MAIL: ted@xxxxxxxxxx
_____________________________________________________
Quotation of the day, 98.10.28:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible."  Albert Einstein