How disappointing. I was expecting something more concrete, like “every node is a sequence point and every edge is a possible transition” or “every node is a point at which a nondeterministic event occurs and every edge corresponds to a causal relation between events”. But if you just say “a computation is a graph” and give no further details, then there&#x27;s no actual benefit to modeling computations as graphs.<p>I&#x27;m even more annoyed by your use of the word “isomorphic”, which, FYI, doesn&#x27;t mean “vaguely similar in some way I can&#x27;t articulate”. It only makes sense two speak of two mathematical objects being “isomorphic” when they belong in the same category. What category do you have in mind, that includes both computations and graphs as objects, and what are the morphisms between them?