[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[igraph] Some peculiarities
From: |
Jukka Ruohonen |
Subject: |
[igraph] Some peculiarities |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:27:42 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
Hello.
I have two simple and possibly stupid questions.
First, consider the following R snippet:
p <- function(y) {
g <- graph.adjacency(y, mode = "directed");
plot(g, layout = layout.spring);
}
par(mfrow=c(3, 1));
x <- matrix(0, nrow = 3, ncol = 3);
x[3, 2] <- 1; p(x); x[2, 3] <- 1;
p(x);
p(x); # Output differs.
Why does the output differ between the last two calls to p()?
Second, I wonder whether there is a simple explanation why triad.census()
may return negative values for empty subgraphs? This is with a large
real-world directed dataset; I didn't find an easy way to reproduce or
demonstrate this.
- Jukka.
- [igraph] Some peculiarities,
Jukka Ruohonen <=