[heisenzombie]

No I had the same reaction. This kind of rigid "semantic network" kind of approach just can't work in the absolute case. And the author seems quite "absolute" about it.

It comes down to - what's the point of this? If it's to prove theorems to a computer then it's obviously the wrong approach. If it's to explain concepts to humans then it's _also_ the wrong approach. It's not true in any useful way that one can learn something by just starting at a random "node" and then "tree shaking" some big "knowledge graph" and just learning the specific edges that remain.

That said, no hate for this kind of tool! Interlinked knowledge is obviously great and useful, it's the emphasis on designing a rigid ontology that makes me raise an eyebrow.