Talk:Hasse diagram

Permutations or Combinations...

This is not a topic for discussion, it is rather a question. The problem is with problems concerning Permutations and Combinations. Whenever a question is put up, i don't know which of them is to be used. Is there any way where i can figure out which application to use for a certain problem? Please suggest.

New diagrams of cubes

This diff introduces a redrawing of the three alternative Hasse diagrams of a powerset (or hypercube), that is, I think, a little prettier than the earlier version of the same set of figures. The first has a row of six beige nodes in the middle, together with two more beige nodes at the top and the bottom. The second has a row of six beige nodes diagonally down the middle of the drawing, together with two more beige nodes at the top left and the bottom right. Therefore, it looks like the row of six is supposed to correspond with the row of six and that the two isoltaed nodes are supposed to correspond with the two isolated nodes. But that doesn't work: it would cause some of the edges in the second drawing to go downwards instead of upwards.

There is a correspondence of beige nodes to beige nodes that does work, and leaves all edges upwards, but it's not the obvious one. For this reason, I find the new drawing confusing. But perhaps not confusing enough to just keep reverting, so I have undone my second reversion and left this comment instead. I hope it can be possible to find a drawing that has not just the aesthetic appeal of this new version, but also avoids the confusion of the sort I fell into here. —David Eppstein 03:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article

This article looks much better than average maths article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.32.149 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: < vs. ≤ ?

The first paragraph describes the diagram in terms of the less-than operator, but later in the article, it seems to use less-than-or-equal. Is this significant? —Burt Harris (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. So I have just changed the definition in the first paragraph. Forejtv (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images

Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE and WP:NOTGALLERY, I have removed a lot of images of marginal relevance from this article. It is essential that we have a *small* number of Hasse diagrams as examples to show what they are, but, as IMAGE RELEVANCE says, "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Additionally, beyond there being simply too many images, many of them were packed with extraneous graphical information that may be relevant to the partial orders from which they were derived but that did not help illustrate the topic of Hasse diagrams in general. Feel free to discuss here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another example to the three that have always been there, because I wanted to avoid the impression that Hasse diagrams always represent lattices. However, a good solution cold be an article with few images and a gallery on Commons linked from here. Lipedia (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there were formerly too many images, but now careless removal of images from the article has broken it. Under 'A "good" Hasse diagram' there are now only two diagrams, but four descriptions of diagrams. It isn't even immediately clear which descriptions are associated with diagrams, and which descriptions are now orphaned and not associated with any diagram. Martin Gradwell (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Point in Adding Comparative Probability or Design?

There isn't an applications section, but was wondering if there is any point in mentioning or explaining the great importance of Hasse diagrams in comparative research design in many fields? R. A. Bailey has some outstanding examples, and other texts compare Hasse to recent Latin Square approaches to design. Didn't want to write a section if there is no need. Great article in general.Pdecalculus (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]