Comment by gaustin
11 years ago
Would a multiply-rooted tree still be a tree? I thought a single root was part of the definition of a tree. Would it instead be a graph?
Sorry for the elementary questions. I'm bad at algorithms and just trying to get a grasp here.
At my university it's common to call acyclic, connected graph a tree. We distinguish between rooted and unrooted trees. For example, minimal spanning tree doesn't really have to be rooted, it just has no cycles.
> acyclic, connected graph a tree
This is the graph theoretic definition of a tree.
Tree is a graph without any cycles, hence the definition still holds. And yes, you can have multiple roots in a tree, ex:
a --> c <---b ^ d-----|
Yes, it's not a tree any more. Which is why I believe this was not the question.