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.
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.