Sorry, but Linked List is class of similar things -- Single-, Double-, Multiple-linkings are all part of the Linked List genre. Just because you associate Linked List strongest with the singly-linked list does not mean that other forms of the same thing, all of which qualify as linked list, can't be called it as well. You are just being disingenuous -- stop it, that is not cool.
Imagine the headline read, "Gas up to $8.23 a gallon" and only upon reading the article did you discover that the "gas" they're talking about is 110 octane race gas. Yes, race gas is a type of gas(oline), but the headline is still quite misleading, as the common definition, without qualifiers, is the pump variety.
In this case, I don't think your analogy holds, because I don't see it as any different than a doubly linked list -- one of the common types. It is just a generalization case of doubly linked list honestly. I see it as about as misleading as finding out the headline gas price was about the premium grade standard pump gasoline rather than the low grade standard pump gasoline, which is maybe a bit tricky, but not rant-worthy.
What you're experiencing right now is called cognitive dissonance or cognitive disequilibrium. You've found that the argument you've been making is at odds with the facts. Claiming that you see no difference between a multiply-linked list and a doubly-linked list is an attempt to shrug off a legitimate point with a nonsensical argument. (Or alternatively you are not skilled enough at programming to understand the topic at hand).
A skip list is also part of the "linked list" genre, but it would be misleading to say that William Pugh patented "linked lists" if he actually patented the skip list. (I don't believe he actually patented the skip list, just to be clear.)
The term "linked list" refers to singly and doubly-linked lists, which may be circular and/or sorted. This is from Intro to Algorithms (2nd ed). It's not just my personal association here.
I suspect that maybe an intro book skips over some stuff in order to present a good conceptual base rather than a fully rigorous, complete set of definitions and options.
Compare an intro to calculus book: it presents you with several differentiation or integration methods, yet when you come across the Lebesgue integration technique, you don't run to your intro book and claim "It's not in here, it's not actually integration!"
Again: please stop with the disingenuous stuff -- it's still not cool.
edit: Someone please explain the downvotes to me? Is it because im calling out a guy who repeatedly tells people to not appeal to authority is appealing to authority for that disingenuous behavior?
> I suspect that maybe an intro book skips over some stuff in order to present a good conceptual base rather than a fully rigorous, complete set of definitions and options.
I suspect that the intro book leaves it out because it's not widely associated with the term, because it's a rather specialized data structure.
TaoCP also doesn't seem to mention multiply-linked lists or anything equivalent in its discussion of linked lists.
> Compare an intro to calculus book: it presents you with several differentiation or integration methods, yet when you come across the Lebesgue integration technique, you don't run to your intro book and claim "It's not in here, it's not actually integration!"
Compare someone claiming that Henri Lebesgue invented integration. It's misleading, not because he didn't invent a type of integration, but because he did not invent integration.
To my mind, the linked list claim is worse than this, because even to advanced practitioners in the field, "linked list" has a relatively specific meaning, and is not generally used to refer to "any data structure with linked elements". One could argue that a graph is a form of linked list, but that's not a common definition.
> Again: please stop with the disingenuous stuff -- it's still not cool.
What's not cool is repeatedly calling someone disingenuous when they take the time to answer you thoughtfully. You're coming off as self-righteous and rude.
1) You seem to think that a couple of books somehow form a complete set of all possible linked lists, despite others pointing out equally valid literature that describes things you are not recognizing as linked lists. This is the classic appeal to authority, and suffers from all the normal problems with it. Why do you think only the books you choose to cite are good examples? Why do you dismiss other sources, such as wikipedia and journals elswhere in this thread? Why are those books definitions more reliable than the way the term is used by many many people in academia and industry?
2) Don't try to extend my analogy about introductory vs rigorous sources to one about claims and invention and patents, the analogy doesn't hold up to it and such extensions to it are nonsensical. I was only talking about your choice of authority in your appeal to authority, and pointing out flaws with that choice - there was no attempt in that paragraph to discuss the wider validity of the patent claim.
3) You arguments are disingenuous which is why I keep calling them such. Disingenuous does not describe the number of words used, it does however describe repeatedly making logical fallacies that you point out and claim to understand elsewhere in your posts.
1) What equally valid literature have others pointed out that calls these multiply-linked lists as simply "linked lists"? What journals are you talking about? So far all I've seen are people arguing from their personal views and communications or referencing the title of the patent. Even the reference to multiply-linked lists on Wikipedia was only added in 2009 (and I was the one who pointed this out), and the definition at the top of Wikipedia explicitly lists the same types of lists as TaoCP and Intro to Algos.
As for why my books are more valid, it's because they are well respected books. I see no compelling reason to trust Jorge Stolfi (the user who added multiply-linked lists to Wikipedia) over Knuth, Leiserson, Rivest, and Stein, especially given that the initial definition Wikipedia gives agrees with my sources, and the mention of multiply-linked lists on Wikipedia is only 2 lines long a third of the way down the article. My argument is that "multiply-linked list" is not synonymous with "linked list", and so the HN title is inappropriate. I've not seen much that disputes that.
2) Your analogy doesn't hold up because it's already broken. My extension is "nonsensical" because it shows your analogy to be invalid. I have not disputed that multiply-linked lists can be considered a type of linked list any more than I've disputed that Lebesgue integration is a type of integration. What I have argued is that the term "linked list" is not typically associated with multiply-linked lists, and that using the term the way the title does is misleading.
You mention "appeal to authority", but an appeal to authority is appropriate when defining terms. It's bogus to argue that authoritative sources have no weight when discussing what a term means. And TaoCP is not an "introductory text". I would argue that "Intro to Algorithms" isn't truly an introductory text, either, given that it's authors consider the scope large enough to be used in graduate classes.
3) So basically you don't actually know what disingenuous means. It means insincere, lacking in candor. I'm not disingenuous simply because you disagree with me. I'm not even disingenuous just because I engage in logical fallacies, unless I do so intentionally (not that I believe I've committed any logical fallacies).
I'm also not sure I've accused anyone of logical fallacy. There was the one person who accused me of appeal to authority by appealing to the same authority, but I was mostly calling him ridiculous, not actually accusing him of a legitimate fallacy.
