Thanks for posting Sean. Any other papers along the same vein ?
Dee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Sean Donelan
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Network integrity and non-random removal of nodes
Thus spake William Waites [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I stand corrected.
It would be interesting to see what outdegree looks like as a function
of rank -- in the paper they give only the maximum and average
(geo. mean) outdegrees. Is there also a critical point 25% of the way
through the
Stephen == Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephen However, all of this is still a relatively minor risk
Stephen compared to the damage that can be caused by simple human
Stephen error.
Absolutely.
So why the panic?
-w
On 22 Nov 2002, William Waites wrote:
Stephen == Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephen However, all of this is still a relatively minor risk
Stephen compared to the damage that can be caused by simple human
Stephen error.
Absolutely.
So why the panic?
Mean
Sean == Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean On 20 Nov 2002, William Waites wrote:
If you randomly select nodes to remove, by the time you have
removed 25% of them, the network breaks up into many isolated
islands.
Sean One of the key points was the nodes
this dead horse enough already
- Original Message -
From: William Waites [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: Network integrity and non-random removal of nodes
Sean == Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean On 20 Nov 2002, William Waites
Sean == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean it says nothing about what will happen to the other 91.7% of
Sean nodes. Considering that 55% of the remaining nodes are
Sean trees, they will be saying Houston we have a problem well
Sean before 25%.
The supposition would be
and disconnected.
- Original Message -
From: William Waites [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: Network integrity and non-random removal of nodes
Sean == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean it says nothing about what will happen to the other
91.7
Sean == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The supposition would be that the remaining nodes are evenly
distributed around the core so the percentage of nodes outside
of the core without connectivity should be roughly the same as
the percentage of nodes removed from the core.
academia debate.
- Original Message -
From: William Waites [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: Network integrity and non-random removal of nodes
Sean == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The supposition would be that the remaining nodes are evenly
10 matches
Mail list logo
