Ben Laurie wrote: > "James B. DiGriz" wrote: > >>Jim Choate wrote: >> >>>Draw a picture. If you don't have a place to post it I can arrange a page >>>gratis. >>> >>>You take three nodes. >>> >>>Arrange them in a ring/triangle. Each node branches to 295(?) other nodes >>>(making it a member of three 100 node subnets - somehow these numbers >>>don't add up). It's not clear if those are a 'one to many' branch or if >>>that node simply has two links to two other nodes in the ring (which has a >>>total of 100 nodes). And where did the '2 other triangles' come from? We >>>start with a single triange that is a member of a larger set the nodes of >>>which are the members of a -two triangle- set? Why is 'our' triangle >>>'single'? >>> >>>Is this a 'big version' of the 'Caveman World'? >>> >>> >> >>The evil triangles have been banished for now. I played with graphviz >>for a while last night and it's easy enough to see that this is a torus. > > > Surely not - in a torus you have loops of nodes, whereas here we have > each node directly connected to 99 others in each segment. It may be a > bit like a torus, but it isn't one. Spose it might be a set of > interconnected 100-dimensional toruses (my head hurts). > > Cheers, > > Ben. > > -- > http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ > > "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he > doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff > >
Yes, that's what was throwing me, too, and why I couldn't reconcile 1,000,000 with the three segments. The connections to the other 297 nodes. This means you have 100 cycles for each segment. In an ordinary torus there's only one. Am I wrong or isn't this just the hypercube anolog for a torus, that is, a hypertorus. If not I suppose you'd just have to call it a polycyclic torus. It does provide a small diameter for such a large number of nodes. jbdigriz
