Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Harold wrote: > Hunsberger, Peter wrote: > > >> I don't get the distinction. As soon as you've got a graph you've got a >> tree (or perhaps many trees). >> > > Not necessarily. All trees are graphs but not all graphs are trees. > For instance a pure tree can't represent a cycle but a graph can. > XML's rule that a node can only have one parent is not a limit of > graphs in general. > I think he meant a spanning tree, i.e. one that has all the nodes but all edges. A graph can have many spanning trees. This works for undirected edges. For directed, there might not be a spanning tree in the mathematical sense, but you can still get one if you reverse the arrows, like in this one o -> o <- o cheers, Burak
|
