[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [igraph] cohesive.blocks()

From: uxzmdlj02
Subject: Re: [igraph] cohesive.blocks()
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:27:59 -0600

Just came accross this (very old) thread, and want to say that Moody and White's paper does indeed misrepresent the blocks in their figure.

On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:32 AM, Gabor Csardi csardi-at-rmki.kfki.hu | igraph-help| wrote:

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 06:54:28PM +0900, MATSUDA, Noriyuki wrote:

  I know cohesive.blocks() extracts two blocks that are cliques.
     block4:   {1-7}
     block 5:  {7,8,11,14)

Block 4 is not a clique in your example. That subgraph has only 18 edges,
a full graph on 7 vertices has 21. You can also see this from
gb$block.cohesion, for a 7-clique it would be 6, but it is 5.

But, I have an impression, from the explanations about Figures 2
and 3 in Moody and White's paper, another one is embedded in
the figures:
       {17,18,19,20,21,22,23}  (not a clique)

This subgraph has cohesion 2, just like block 2 in which it is
included. That's why it is not shown as a cohesive block.
Basically, any subset of block 2 has at least cohesion 2,
by definition.

  This is derivable from the output of cohesive.blocks().


Yet I'd
be happy if the group were directly obtainable, if it is cohesive (
to a lesser extent than a clique).

The concept of 'cohesive' is well defined, and according to
this definition 17:23 is not more cohesive than block 2, in which
it is embedded. If you want to have all subsets of vertices
that have at least cohesion 2, then generate all possible subsets
of block 2 and 3. I can't really understand why you would want
this, though.


   I know that  a set {8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15} is not cohesive.


Csardi Gabor <address@hidden>    UNIL DGM

igraph-help mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]