From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id gAm8MkEIwl+hRwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:20:17 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id INuKLkEIwl9IZwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:20:17 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF4FC9403A2 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46272 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kivSo-0007KB-Dm for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 03:20:14 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44782) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kivSF-0007K2-Un for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 03:19:39 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]:41901) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kivSE-0003xT-9X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 03:19:39 -0500 Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id gj5so10782373ejb.8 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 00:19:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W5UqWEoze6LSbuy/IOybBlXwPffuLrahz3KnIahkgBU=; b=FI51ylC4sZADpK7J3g06d/n+lWcZa/SQJdeYKQ49L4HuCz2Np9+6UHHxWENuSuVV0I 2/aAzm6ZxIBubMkSKMeJQQSkKCRaIa/PhG40hY9/O7EMtls82K5j/sMXkTkL1UYaCWxf H77ZBHLmVdDH7fjog45O6IJgKjuRkWYftYz9jDNOIgwi0kzgo5T7ppE20WRszwHVybTP BGjQowsNbCw1vQwaxZwNV6KhBx3DI8hEWsIxLg72McOFo1Sda4Pc02v8plGo/UskO812 /jpUIZfALGWFXIgfkzyGYSKiH4Ty/ehWL4JaWMGJUGU5N5RrmkMW0wTOs26bFFYzpuCY yTbw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W5UqWEoze6LSbuy/IOybBlXwPffuLrahz3KnIahkgBU=; b=tRtMcb6PXjLpyNbeXFVUyFvQosVHmLCm3gu5dAaCzIenJ7u1E7h6oiozef+2byGuFy Hovf5k/j12qK8bmiUghsdFRUM6UfqmYQ3H2IXnsLRRAKlyjXvwDXx/UPThr1wT4WtL23 3gyiaLso8W8Hea45jbB/onqLerOPGhCqtpJsHPTWsC1uTnYifCyThEwK7BLFgDNwFSzw EyLVkv69nTacYw872E3NCJz2yBDLKn+NfMcx9jswKu3OJBIafi3NZg08NZi0rHelZ0Y7 m0mEPsGiQZN/+IqxNxy530k/k6fGK1N9XKSgJBSstC8JiAAI8WygeXzPAZVq/8hM4D5Q 3Gzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319S8TL5+x54v+1BpyrarwVyZBcARws8RskIqEh5+Oxx3kARqX9 pTrSpVVNc+UkgwsEiJ+mAHLJN82kwMxZQ5wu3BQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxbSs+txgRk0x4B1D1S1Kp6/yqOsebJh1MpXwdC7mUjff9sdK55MTwIUSrLO21kvyAnL8aHyneZ5nYA5+Kf0o= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1758:: with SMTP id d24mr12180948eje.287.1606551576260; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 00:19:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Texas Cyberthal Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 16:18:59 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: One vs many directories To: Jean Louis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::62a; envelope-from=texas.cyberthal@gmail.com; helo=mail-ej1-x62a.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" , "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.97 X-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=FI51ylC4; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-TUID: 0W0zS4iULpk5 Hi Jean, > What should it be or do? Dbmind does things that Postgres handles better than Org. > As you have specific thought order in directory names then maybe such could be parsed, maybe slashes / removed to show a full path to the file. This becomes long but could be useful in some lists. I don't intend to do so. Textmind maximizes path dynamism via Dired+Treefactor. Links shouldn't break that. > Alright and I find that it is the case on my side, and previous work of Engelbart, then also within some other information management systems, like Semantic Synchrony. Some of that might qualify as an algorithm, but not a natural thought algorithm. A natural thought algorithm must manage substantially all natural thoughts while satisfying the definition of an algorithm. The things you mentioned are not even as sophisticated and complete as GTD. And GTD is merely a personal paper-management algorithm, not a natural thought algorithm. (Textmind manages text only, whereas some people think visually. It would be easy to adapt Textmind principles to Binmind, if needed. Therefore even for visual thinkers, Cyborganize is a natural thought algorithm.) I doubt there are multiple ways to design a natural thought algorithm. For example, all natural thoughts occur in a chronological sequence. This necessitates a ramblog to accurately reflect them. This is the GTD inbox algorithm: https://michaelwhatcott.com/gtd-workflow-processing-algorithm/ GTD is usually called a method. I've started calling Textmind an algorithm to emphasize the finiteness aspect of its design, a key feature. I think I could construct a pseudocode Textmind algorithm. It would of course rely on human judgment for some decisions, and judgment is fuzzy. But the algorithm itself would be unambiguous.