| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments:
<0> heh
<1> i have a girlfriend :/ that has to count for something
<1> she's not even fat, or middle aged
<0> how are you going to create relationships between topics?
<1> that's a good idea FatherHam
<2> well, i just think a bro-relationship should always point to which version of a vertical child this bro-point-of-view-document relates to.
<0> does that mean that the sis requires 90% agreement? like in rl?
<2> so, basically my bros' point of view only relates to the his first document, not the vertical childs, it might, but is not directly related to sub-childes
<0> i don't really understand the diagram though
<0> johnz - did you do this?
<3> Lra object database has { objectID, parentID, siblingID } so lets say i make a text object and the id is 1. to make a vertical child, an object is created and the parentID is 1. to make a brother, an object is created and siblingID is 1.
<2> Lra, not FatherHam did
<0> yeah
<0> FatherHam - that's how forums work
<0> same thing
<0> forum id/thread id/ message id etc
<3> forums only have vertical parent/child relations
<3> im exploring extending it into other dimensions
<0> ahh
<0> i see now
<0> so when you look at one side, you could see the against argument
<1> FatherHam the easiest way would be to have one HUGEGANTIC array and use a nifty recursive function to skim the tree
<3> so you might own 1 thread, and i own another, and we link them as both being different sides to the same observation
<0> yeah
<0> what's the 90 / 1- bue?
<0> bus?
<0> business
<0> why not have { objectID, parentID, siblingID, sideID }
<3> Lra all objects can be approved through voting that you like it. so that is showing that out of these 2 objects, one has 90% of the approval, the other 10
<0> ok
<0> oh i see
<0> nm
<0> sidePercentage
<0> that way, you could have a clear division
<0> or owuld you have diff arguments for diff percentages
<3> so if you clicked to view the vertical relationship it would be just like a forum.... if you clicked to view a horizontal relation it would rotate the entire structure on its side, and be like a forum. but now you are navigating 2 dimensional space rather than 1
<0> like: 50% agree with this, 30% agree with this, 19% agree with this 1% are dumb ****es
<3> its not just 2 sides of an argument, this same method is applied to all objects. so you could have 200 perspectives all horizontally linked, and replys under them could also have horizonal and vertical relations with other objects
<0> can messages move 10% to say 20% ?
<0> that would get ugly
<3> the % is just a calculation. all you do is click a button to toggle, "Yes i approve"
<3> you turn it on or off
<0> each person would think their statement is slightly different when in fact it's just reworded
<3> then the calculation is done by adding them up
<0> in that case you're goin gto get like 5.032%
<3> it is just used as a guide to show which is most popular
<0> unless you round()
<0> in that case, shove a percentage in the object, and GROUP by PERCENTAGE
<0> or whatever
<3> like lets say i make a logo and upload it as a picture object.... then someone comes in and horizontally adds his take on the same logo.... then ppl approve which they like, and we can see who has the most support
<0> GROUP BY PERCENTAGE ORDER BY parentID ASC iirc
<0> so you update hte percentage value to the db
<3> the percentage is actually done relatively, so it has to be done after the select. but thats a technical detail... im just trying to discuss the abstract right now
<0> and then next time you query it, it gets grouped into the percentage band
<0> no
<0> you could do a COUNT()
<0> don't need to select :)
<0> or just mysql_get_num_rows(
<0> do you see where i'm coming from?
<3> anyways, all of that is meaningless because i dont know what the abstract plan is. you are coding something without knowing what we are doing. i do this a lot, and it wastes energy
<3> do you still say the horizontal objects are of the same species?
<0> of course
<0> your brother is human no?
<3> ya
<0> but depends how far you want to take the meaning of species
<0> you're confusing your diagram
<0> normally in an oop diagram, you have the base cl*** at the top
<0> ie. animal
<0> then under that is another cl***/es, say mammal, can't think of others...
<0> then under that would be: humans, whales, blah blah blah
<1> whales!
<3> sperm
<0> in that sense, you, your bother, mother, father, cousin, neighbour girl you shagged last night are all horizontal
<1> teehee
<0> even your sons/daughters are horizontal with you
<0> i bet fatkid got bullied a lot at school
<3> hmm
<4> spermwhales... white mice
<4> 42
<4> 42!!
<4> dolphins!!
<1> snap out of it man
<1> can't you see we're in danger here?
<3> then i think species is a wrong way to look at it
<4> Smurf, what danger
<1> the imminent kind
<0> FatherHam - for you yes
<0> think of it more like an xml file
<0> just think about parents
<0> ie the subject/topic/thread is the main parent
<0> then the opinions are childs of that topic
<0> and votes are childs of the opinions
<0> understand?
<3> no because where is the horizontal then
<3> in my diagram, the horizontal relationship means, "different perspective on the same point of the sibling". and the vertical is, "revisions of the parent"
<1> i'd say it's more like an infinitely dimensioned array
<3> a vertical relation is like a response, bouncing off the parent with whatever comes as the natural response
<3> hmm
<3> ya its like an array, 2d right?
<1> no
<1> 2d arrays within 2d arrays
<3> right, hmm is that a 3d array then?
<0> the horizontal is created by the parent ids
<1> ... hard to explain
<0> ie, all the opinions to a thread have the same parent id (ie. thread id)
<0> that way, the horizontal that you put it, is implicitly created
<0> ie. you havce to vision it in your head
<3> you are speaking of descendants in a vertical fashion. that is how a reply works, that is how a folder with files in it works. it is a parent/child tree
<0> exactly
<0> and that's what you want
<1> arr[1] would be a 2d array, and would be a horizontal 'chain', arr[1][0] would be the first and totally related idea, arr[1][1] would be an opinion on that related idea
<3> i want multiple dimensions where each one offers something different.
<3> arrays hurt my brain to visualize
<1> <3 arrays
<3> hehe
<3> you are a math guy maybe
<1> nah, just like arrays ;)
<1> i did a project once that had a huge 3d array containing 2d arrays ;)
<4> a dimension of an array can be represented in less dimensions
<4> I mean
<4> X dimensional array can be presented in x-1 dimensions
<4> and ultimately, flat array
<0> FatherHam - do you want opinions to be able to be replied to?
<0> it's not that difficult in terms of db storage
<3> suv4x4 then an array with arrays in it represents what dimensional data?
<3> Lra hmm ya
<0> no need to worry abotu arrays
<4> Famic-, array with arrays is 2d
<0> just chuck it all in the db and let that do it's work
<4> array with arrays with arrays is 3D
<3> hmm
<4> don't make me write what 100 dimensional array is
<4> cuz
<0> ok
<4> my CTRL is broken
<1> lol
<3> what if every array can have arrays? you just call it infinite?
<0> teh db has an object table
<0> FatherHam - don't think of it as an array
<0> that will do your head in
<0> it's not an array
<1> why not? arrays are FUN
<0> it's just simply related
<3> ya arrays are confusing, but i thought that was interesting so i was curious
<3> x-1
<0> heh
<0> FatherHam.stop() :)
<1> Lra.dontMakeMeKickYour***("please");
<0> i've just completed a completely dynamic website in php and mysql
Return to
#flash
or
Go to some related
logs:
neruppu guna
SUNA goverment
#nhl
#unixhelp
#firebird
#fedora
#c
#computers
krouton jpres
shickira
|
|