Talk:Value of networks: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
imported>T. J. Frazier
(→‎Reed's Law: exponential formula)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:


:Will go check as soon as I have a few minutes. Thanks. Obviously, what you said is correct. Without looking at the exact formula, I don't think both should be factorials. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:Will go check as soon as I have a few minutes. Thanks. Obviously, what you said is correct. Without looking at the exact formula, I don't think both should be factorials. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::A quick check of the Reed's Law ref (I fixed that) says that the formula should be exponential, not factorial. Reed gives the formula 2<sup>N</sup>-N-1 for the number of non-trivial subsets. --[[User:T. J. Frazier|T. J. Frazier]] 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
== Additions? ==
Nice article. Do RFC 1925 or the [http://blogs.sun.com/jag/resource/Fallacies.html Eight Fallacies] fit in here or in some other article? [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 23:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:Interesting thoughts. Those tend to be negative values.  I should also go look at Padlipsky, and, while not purely networking, Brooks as well. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:29, 23 October 2010

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Definition [?]
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Please add a brief definition or description.
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Computers, Sociology and Economics [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive 1  English language variant American English
To do.


Metadata here


Reed's Law (moved from archive)

Archive pages are meant for old talk page material; current discussion is just under "Talk". Howard C. Berkowitz 16:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reed's Law

A quick look at the formula for Reed's law may prompt a review of the formula submitted.

(N-1)!/(N-1)! is in effect a full number and not a ratio, i.e. it will return a value of one regardless of the actual value of N. Perhaps a review of the formula is required. User: Ivan Kelly‎

Will go check as soon as I have a few minutes. Thanks. Obviously, what you said is correct. Without looking at the exact formula, I don't think both should be factorials. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A quick check of the Reed's Law ref (I fixed that) says that the formula should be exponential, not factorial. Reed gives the formula 2N-N-1 for the number of non-trivial subsets. --T. J. Frazier 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Additions?

Nice article. Do RFC 1925 or the Eight Fallacies fit in here or in some other article? Sandy Harris 23:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. Those tend to be negative values. I should also go look at Padlipsky, and, while not purely networking, Brooks as well. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)