straycat on Nostr: I just realized what I said is untrue: tapestry theory does not require the sets and ...

I just realized what I said is untrue: tapestry theory does not require the sets and subsets within a concept to be acyclic.

The class_thread_propagation relationship type (one of the 3 main relationship types that define a class thread — the other two types being class_thread_initiation and class_thread_termination) can be interpreted as the statement that node A is a superset of node B (or conversely, node B is a subset of node A). And there is no rule that A and B cannot be subsets of each other, in which case they are equivalent (any element of one is an element of the other).

I could say, for example, that the superset of all dogs (in my database) has subsets A and B, that A is a subset of B, and B is a subset of A.

So I shouldn’t refer to it as a DAG. It’s directed, and a graph, and is probably acyclic in many cases, but definitely not always.