Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Again, you shouldn't be surprised by this at all (I'd think it's rather obvious).

I'm not sure why you think that I'm surprised, or even why you think that I disagree with your overall argument. I'm just trying to help you build your argument by pointing out the most obvious aspects which need more careful elucidation.

So your claim is that in the physical world strings are more fundamental than trees. Good to know. In fact I think there's an even simpler reason than the one you give of "entropy". That is, trees require space which grows exponentially in their depth, and thus they can't even be represented in the physical world.

I gave a more specific explanation in another comment: trees are more complex because they require nodes to be connected and each node to have no more than one parent. A string is any stream of measurements. The exponential growth of trees doesn't bother me, because you can have a natural encoding that doesn't grow exponentially, and doesn't increase interpretation cost exponentially.

And I gave a more specific objection there too.

A string is quite different from a stream. A string is typically considered random access, for a start.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact