Trees of knowledge

it is called a table of contents to a book

>>8770765
Yes but I'm talking about one for all of human knowledge that you can zoom in on like Google Earth

>Can knowledge just not be arranged like this
This.
Any tree of knowledge can be formally encoded into ZFC set theory (with sets as nodes and membership as arrows), and as with any formal system, set theory is known to be incomplete qua Godel (and Tarski).

>>8770765
Also table of contents are often useless in intro level textbooks like "Getting started", "Looking deeper into the data" wow thanks table of contents, so useful /s

>>8770769
Okay but in practical terms, we can estimate what this tree would be. Just like you can solve the *gasp* undecidable halting problem for a subset of programs if you set a max number of iterations using state caching/hashing

We can make this

File: 1490116844954.jpg (24KB, 400x331px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x331px

>>8770761
>Can knowledge just not be arranged like this or is humanity lazy?
2 words. Job security.

>>8770767
if you want to make one yourself you could start at something like a university course listing.
if you dont want to make one yourself clearly you are the lazy 1

i think human knowledge is more like a directed acyclic graph than a tree though. arguably the "hard thing" about mastering subsets of human knowledge is that advanced topics tend to have multiple lower level dependencies

>>8770782
Yes it would obviously be a graph not a tree, but tree seemed more like the phrase "tree of knowledge" or wisdom or whatever so I just wrote tree lol

>knowledge doesn't have cycles

>>8770761
i agree with you anon.. Learning almost about anything (theoretical atleast) becomes way more easier when we can categorize stuff

>>8770761
Arbital is a somewhat-related project (for math).
I don't believe it will succeed though.

That tree is what you see now, but it started as philosophy.

Start there again. It explains all the basics you need. After that all is easy the grasp

Have you ever heard of the rhizome, brainlet?

>>8771148
I see, but I don't think this is relevant

>>8770770
>/s
You should go back.

>>8770761
What is root and main categories?

>>8771526
No root. A formal tree doesn't even matter just a loose one, for reference purposes

I don't mean this as a comprehensive perfect thing, just a useful reference for learners where they can enumerate a branch of knowledge and learn it all

There is no root we edited it to a graph

>>8771572
Is there only science stuff on the tree? How about astrology?

Other thing is - a lot of knowledge connect with other knowledge so this could get messy.

But I applaud the idea. Children need structure.

>>8771636
GRAPH not tree. Can't edit 4chun

http://www.mapequation.org/assets/img/science2004.svg
It's been done already, this is a graph of citations arranged by their respective fields

>>8770761
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

it isnt all encompassing but i think its a start towards what youre looking for

>>8773089
>>8773103
Wow, thanks a TON anons. I appreciate that

>>8773118
i know the feel man, ive wanted to see something like this too. a ridiculously large reference set which shows the steps to any knowledge

to learn this learn these things first and to learn those learn these other things before them.... on an on and on

>>8773120
We should make a new wikipedia add-on

The "knowledge graph". They can initialize it based on "Categories", "See also" and internal references. Then people can start adding on

I think desu that this graph should ignore historical data. It should only include things that are timelessly true and unbiased, scientific things. Nothing historic or political except pure political science in the game theory and psychology sense

Then people can edit the graph by making new nodes, new edges, new expansions on nodes. This won't just be a graph with nodes, but a graph with large categories too so you can click "math" and all the math related high level nodes go into one place to view. The graph would rearrange itself.

Idk

>>8773130
similar to the hyperphysics link or graphically displayed like the mapequation link

>>8773132
Like hyperphysics but with a more realtime web interface sort of where you can also view the graph in 3d, color-code dependencies. Just a more complex graph rendering method.

>>8773143
im imagining advanced studies being on the outside of the circle and the more rudimentary concepts toward the inside

what subjects would it go over? math and science?

i dont see how art and history could really be referenced but those are fields im weak in

>>8773176
Actually art and history could be timeline based

They could have their own graphs separate from the main one which are singly directed graphs involving people, events, places, artistic creations, and broad categories (ww2, impressionism)

>>8770761
>more fields work towards organizing all of their knowledge into a tree
two reasons:
(1) "fields" don't organise
(2) knowledge is not a tree

>>8773226
Read the thread, it's now a graph

>>8770761

Not exactly what you are looking for but maybe helpful for certain category type selections https://openknowledgemaps.org

I find things like these interesting and hope they expand.

>>8773248
Wow that is amazing anon thanks for the link. But yeah not quite this thread since it's just links to research papers

But the best anyone has posted yet

>>8770761
>Why don't more fields work towards organizing all of their knowledge into a tree of categories and concepts?
You have to see your tree of wisdom and information in your mind. There lies infinite storage.