Comments on: Graph Theory: Part II (Linear Algebra) http://20bits.com/articles/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/ Driven by Data Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:50:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Carlos http://20bits.com/articles/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/comment-page-1/#comment-4115 Carlos Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:32:39 +0000 http://20bits.com/2007/08/02/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/#comment-4115 When the part iii is coming up? When the part iii is coming up?

]]> By: Kundai http://20bits.com/articles/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/comment-page-1/#comment-3763 Kundai Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:48:52 +0000 http://20bits.com/2007/08/02/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/#comment-3763 For "4. Vector addition distributes over scalar multiplication", should that not read that "Scalar multiplication distributes over vector addition?" For “4. Vector addition distributes over scalar multiplication”,
should that not read that “Scalar multiplication distributes over vector addition?”

]]> By: Jesse http://20bits.com/articles/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/comment-page-1/#comment-681 Jesse Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:15:20 +0000 http://20bits.com/2007/08/02/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/#comment-681 Dan, You're right, but it'd be a pain in the butt to go back and correct it. The error will have to stand. Dan,

You’re right, but it’d be a pain in the butt to go back and correct it. The error will have to stand.

]]> By: Dan http://20bits.com/articles/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/comment-page-1/#comment-623 Dan Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:58:52 +0000 http://20bits.com/2007/08/02/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/#comment-623 That adjacency matrix seems to be wrong. Look at row 1. It indicates that vertex 1 is connected to vertices 2 and 4. When in fact it is connected to vertices 2 and 3. If the graph had vertices in clockwise order v1, v2, v3, v4 as James suggests, then this adjacency matrix would be correct. Enjoying reading your blog very much and looking forward to the next part in this series!! That adjacency matrix seems to be wrong.

Look at row 1. It indicates that vertex 1 is connected to vertices 2 and 4. When in fact it is connected to vertices 2 and 3.

If the graph had vertices in clockwise order v1, v2, v3, v4 as James suggests, then this adjacency matrix would be correct.

Enjoying reading your blog very much and looking forward to the next part in this series!!

]]> By: James http://20bits.com/articles/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/comment-page-1/#comment-564 James Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:52:18 +0000 http://20bits.com/2007/08/02/graph-theory-part-ii-linear-algebra/#comment-564 Interesting stuff. I had read about incidence matricies before, but hadn't seen a graph theory representation. By the way, I think there's an inconsistancy between your definition of the incidence matrix and the incidence matrix for C4 (did you mean m verticies and n columns, where the matrix is mxn?) Your graph of C4 also has the bottom two verticies interchanged. Interesting stuff. I had read about incidence matricies before, but hadn’t seen a graph theory representation. By the way, I think there’s an inconsistancy between your definition of the incidence matrix and the incidence matrix for C4 (did you mean m verticies and n columns, where the matrix is mxn?) Your graph of C4 also has the bottom two verticies interchanged.

]]>