All finite lattices are posets, but not all finite posets are lattices, so I stand by the usage. Yes obviously, but nowhere is it clear that you actually have a lattice of any kind. Specifically, I see no reason why…
You state that: A lattice is a partial ordering with a single unique "top element" (least upper bound) and a single unique "bottom element" (greatest lower bound). Every node in the lattice is reachable by following…
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that most of this guy's ideas are either a bit half-baked or simply flat out wrong. Consider the argument for his proposed language being Turing complete on the flow manifesto page.…
All finite lattices are posets, but not all finite posets are lattices, so I stand by the usage. Yes obviously, but nowhere is it clear that you actually have a lattice of any kind. Specifically, I see no reason why…
You state that: A lattice is a partial ordering with a single unique "top element" (least upper bound) and a single unique "bottom element" (greatest lower bound). Every node in the lattice is reachable by following…
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that most of this guy's ideas are either a bit half-baked or simply flat out wrong. Consider the argument for his proposed language being Turing complete on the flow manifesto page.…