Talk:Tree structure

Hierarchy

• I feel tree structure and hierarchical tree structure are the more obvious candidates, as they both describe their subject in similar terms, whereas tree data structure adds 'data' to the equation.
• But I know too little about the use of tree structures in communications and computer science to decide whether these are three distinct articles. I do feel that at least the 'tree structure' article should be less nerdy and more accessible. Genealogists use tree structures too. Also I currently miss information on the naming of elements and relations in tree structures (but perhaps I should look at the general articles on structure for this). branko
• The term "tree" implies a hierarchy, so "hierarchical" is redundant, I think. Plus "Tree structure" is the simplest name, so that's a good thing too. -- Tarquin
• I think most people probably think about the things outside with bark that grow in soil, when they here the word tree. Also it's possible to think of a tree as a sort of graph: I'd tentatively say the meaning is only hierarchical when you put hierarchical data in it. Despite that I think hierarchical is a good way of describing it, being such a common usage. Oligomous (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• I like to see Wikipedia a concept network, where each article as explains and documents a single "concept" with links to related concepts. This could be conceived of as the ultimate encyclopedia, also useful for AI (Artificial Intelligence) R&D and as a way to achieve continuous and up-to-date man-machine knowledge transfer (could work both ways - teamwork let's hope :). Therefore I think the concept of "Tree Structure" can be seen as broader than as a 'Graphical Representation'. In fact I feel the phrase could be agreed to cover the whole concept of "Tree Structure" as it could be used most broadly. I do agree that the concept of "Tree Structure" is more or less isomorphic with the concept of "Hierarchy". However I see "Tree Structure" as a sub-set of the "Hierarchy" as it is a restricted term. Surely it is in all our interests to achieve replacement of the need for survival-based work with other activities we prefer? I think we can do this soon if we can send our well-educated, intelligent robots to work for us drawing on up-to-date knowledge from Wikipedia? (whether sourced from man or machine? :) Jjalexand

Graphic

• It would make more sense if the graphic only had lines directly linking parent and child nodes. The current diagram, whilst in the correct generally accepted format for family trees, could be mis-interpreted as suggesting that there was a direct path between siblings, instead of a path via the parent. The Anome
• I am not sure I understand what you mean. Do you think it is confusing that the nodes are drawn having borders that have the same width and color as the branch lines? branko
• What I mean is that the lines connecting the boxes have branches in, providing connections between siblings as well as connections between parents and children. They should be replaced by direct connections between parent and child. Here's an ASCII art diagram of what I mean. The Anome

Current

              ---------------
             |  Parent       |
              ---------------
                    |
           +--------+---------+
           |                  |
     -------------          -------------
    | Child 1     |        |   Child 2   |
     -------------          -------------

What I mean

           ---------------
          |  Parent       |
           ---------------
             /          \
            /            \
     ---------------     -------------
    | Child 1       |   |  Child 2    |
     ---------------     -------------

Thank you for the explanation. I agree, and I redrew the image (easy!) as you requested. branko

thank you very much

Link doesn't work

"Wikipedia tree hierarchy of categories and pages under Computing" in the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.165.14 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Tree structure and Tree (data structure) ought to be merged. First of all, they are essentially the same concept. The fact that one is represented by a database and the other by anything is irrelevant. Secondly, as these articles stand, there is significant overlap. Finally, the descriptions of the various objects, etc., in tree (data structure) are already mostly generalised and apply to all trees, not just ones modelled by a computer. — Skittleys (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think we can merge Tree data structure and Hierarchical tree structure into this. Any objections? -- Tarquin 13:01 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)
• No objection at all. And I'd suggest doing this to rooted hierarchical tree structure, too!. The Anome
• I support this too Oligomous (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the two pages are confusingly similar now, but I think a better solution is to have one be about the concept of a tree (this could include the dewey decimal system), and the other be about the computer science or mathematical representation. I will try to implement the change. Wxidea (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)