Definition talk:Rooted Tree

Do we really want to enforce countability? Intuitively, $\N^\N$, the set of all sequences of natural numbers, can be represented as a rooted tree as well (though every node has countably many direct descendants, but that shouldn't be a problem). --Lord_Farin 06:37, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
 * The source work I was using defined it as having a "finite or countable" set of nodes. Maybe they deliberately restricted the concept for their own purposes, that of providing a proof model for zeroth order logic. Shrug. --prime mover 09:33, 5 June 2012 (EDT)


 * No more shrugging. We should get a more general definition and an "also defined as" and all that fun stuff. --Dfeuer (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Shrug. --prime mover (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the refactor template? Looks to me like the refactoring has already been done. --prime mover (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The header levels are off -- fixing this requires using the extension transclusion. Also, some definitions (like parent mapping) are hidden on the subpages of other definitions. The page as a whole would benefit from a reconsideration of its presentation. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)