From: Beatriz S. <bea...@gm...> - 2007-04-17 19:21:31
|
Sorry if you 've misunderstood my question. I mean, i'm no t judging anything. But I run this algorithm several times with the same graph but different weights and the results changes, and when iI've said are different I mean the order of the nodes with the same number of connexions, and I thought that maybe there's a reason behind. Nevermind, thank you for answer so fast and overall for this api that is making my project faster ;P Best, bea. On 4/17/07, Joshua O'Madadhain <jos...@gm...> wrote: > > Beatriz: > > I'm not sure that I understand what your question is; it sounds like > you're not satisfied with the results of our algorithm, but I'm not > sure what you want. You've already noticed that our ranking algorithm works on the basis > of degree rather than weighted degree. It sounds like you might want > something that ranks vertices of the same degree according to their > weighted degree. Is that correct? > > Maybe to clarify things you could reorder the output you showed us > (just using cut-and-paste) to show us what order you'd like the > results to be in. > > Joshua > > On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea...@gm...> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm analysing some social networks, and I have some wierd results on > this > > algorithm, so if anyone could help me to understand?? > > My Results: > > > > 1. 8 conexions > > 2. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 52 > > 3. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 37 > > 4. 6 conexions and the sum od weights = 23 > > 5. 5 conexions and the sum od weights = 21 > > 6. 4 conexions and the sum od weights = 11 > > 7. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > 8. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > 9. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > 10. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 15 > > 11. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 17 > > 12. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 5 > > 13. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > 14. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 13 > > 15. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > I understand that is ranking by the number od connexions, but i don't > know > > how to rank when the nodes has the same number of conexions. > > > > Thanks, > > Bea. > > > > -- > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > > (Donald Rumsfeld) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Jung-support mailing list > > Jun...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jung-support > > > > > > > -- > jos...@gm......................www.ics.uci.edu/~jmadden > Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, > Philosopher-At-Tall > It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for. -- Bill > Watterson > My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any > organization. > -- "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." (Donald Rumsfeld) |