Re:The quantum computing bubble
by robertlagrant on Monday September 05, 2022 @06:57AM
(#32722919)
I've thought about this before, but notating as a structure that needs logical supports instead of a graph.
Re:The quantum computing bubble
by brutusborn on Monday September 05, 2022 @07:10AM
(#32723014)
When you say logical supports, do you mean something like "A because B and C"? Why is this better than a graph?
If you can't tell I don't know much about formal logic. Apologies for the naive questions.
Re:The quantum computing bubble
by robertlagrant on Monday September 05, 2022 @08:32AM
(#32723560)
I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying I've thought of a similar idea but with a different notation.
Re:The quantum computing bubble
by brutusborn on Monday September 05, 2022 @08:47AM
(#32723684)
I didn't mean to come across as argumentative, I was just looking for more details so I could understand better.
Re:The quantum computing bubble
by robertlagrant on Monday September 05, 2022 @01:58PM
(#32727150)
Oh, you didn't. I did. Sorry - mind on other things!
I've always wondered if the format of long form expert opinions could be replaced by a knowledge graph that is independent of the expert.
E.g. instead of article "Economist John rejects minimum wage"
Root node "Minimum wage is not the best solution to problem x" -> because -> <node to define problem>, <node to define alternative solutions> -> because -> <leaf nodes of studies or models>
In this way other experts could add to the graph and the differences between different branches of argument could be more easily compared or automatically updated. Articles could still be written, but could reference specific nodes or edges of the graph which adds clarity to the discussion.