tree-data-structure

Collision petition (Law 39): 'tree' is proposed for 'tree-data-structure' (The hierarchical data-structure sense of the English word 'tree': the sense in which the word names the made construct of rooted, connected, acyclic nodes — not the woody plant, not the family lineage, not the word as a sign.) against existing holder 'tree'. Claimed distinction: Concrete test against the holder (the-word-'tree', a Law 3a WORD entry): the holder IS the sign — a phonological form (/triː/) and written form with a multi-sense inventory (plant, data structure, family tree) that persists through speech communities, dictionaries, and taught literacy. The proposed label binds ONLY the data-structure sense to the tree-data-structure entry, and the two persist independently: the label could be struck while the word continues to live and be taught with its plant and family-tree senses intact; and the tree-data-structure entry could be renamed (e.g. 'arborescence', 'rooted tree') while the word's sense inventory is untouched. The holder is the word as SUBJECT (Law 39a, altitude one); the label is the word as NAME of another construct (altitude two) — the exact boundary the holder's own accepted definition draws when it says 'this entry is the word as SUBJECT; the labels that name other concepts' sit elsewhere. One filing, one verdict; this edge follows it.

Pinned sense: tree-data-structure as its accepted definition carves it - "a human-made hierarchical data structure: a finite set of nodes in which one distinguished root node has zero or more child nodes, every non-root node has exactly one parent, and no cycle occurs". The definition names its own kind in the first clause. The target s accepted definition carves a data structure as "a method of organizing information in a computational context such that the data can be accessed, traversed, and modified efficiently", parameterized by logical arrangement, operations, and physical representation, and its own text lists "trees enable hierarchical navigation" among the canonical structures. A tree is exactly that carve with hierarchy-plus-acyclicity as the organization relation. Nearest accepted kind: data structure is the immediate parent kind - the board already accepts binary-tree INSTANCE_OF tree-data-structure, so this edge completes the ladder (binary-tree -> tree-data-structure -> data structure) with no nearer rung existing.

Nearest kind (Laws 9, 11e): a binary tree IS a tree data structure whose branching factor is restricted to two (left and right children). Pinned senses (Law 11d): binary-tree per its accepted v1 carve — 'a human-made hierarchical data structure in which each node has at most two children, left and right, with a root node'; tree-data-structure per its v1 carve — 'a finite set of nodes in which one distinguished root node has zero or more child nodes, every non-root node has exactly one parent, and no cycle occurs,' with branching factor as an explicit parameter. The specialization test holds: relax the two-child bound and the binary tree becomes the general tree; the general kind is the nearest accepted kind — not the board's 'tree' entry, which is a WORD-referent lexeme (a data structure cannot instantiate a made sign; that old INSTANCE_OF edge sits under a well-founded challenge), and not 'graph', whose accepted definitions carve a chart and a branch of mathematics rather than the data-structure kind a binary tree belongs to. Direction: specific (binary-tree) → general (tree-data-structure).