Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21fecba884fea0a

Jump to content

Talk:Exponential tree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 20 years ago by Bernard François

Xerox patent

[edit]

This means that the patent that Xerox has on using hyperbolic geometry to lay out trees encompasses prior art and is invalid.

Has the Patent Office or a court ruled it invalid, or is this just somebody's personal legal opinion? Josh Cherry 16:06, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since nobody has come forth to defend this, I have removed what seems to be the writer's personal opinion. If somebody important is publicly making this claim, we can put back something like "Xyz alledges that...." Josh Cherry 00:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why would I use an exponential tree?

[edit]

It would be nice to see an example of an application of this kind of tree, and also some information on the efficiency of it. --Bernard François 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article may require clean-up

[edit]

Three reasons:

  • The illustration could be done a lot better, I think it's awfull.
  • Probably the link under the see also section of the article should be a reference. It's not a page within wikipedia.
  • It says something about the dimension of a tree, while later it talks about nodes having different dimensions. I don't understand this. I added a request for more information on this on the talk page of regular trees. If any explanation would be added there, there should be a link to it on this page. --Bernard François 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply