Re: [igraph] help with cohesion.blocks (again...)

[Simone Gabbriellini]

thanx Gabor!!!!

Simone

Il giorno 05/feb/08, alle ore 17:22, Gabor Csardi ha scritto:

> Here is a (pre) 0.5 package, in case you (or anyone) is interested,
> source R package:
>
> http://cneurocvs.rmki.kfki.hu/igraph/download/igraph_0.5.tar.gz
>
> R windows (32 bit) binary package:
>
> http://cneurocvs.rmki.kfki.hu/igraph/download/igraph_0.5.zip
>
> Only some minor things will change before 0.5, at least this is the
> plan....
>
> Gabor
>
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:39:02PM +0100, Gabor Csardi wrote:
> > Simone, hard to say exactly. It is pretty close, should be in a week
> > or so. But i said the same in November last year....
> >
> > Gabor
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:02:10PM +0100, Simone Gabbriellini wrote:
> > > Gabor, Peter,
> > >
> > > can you tell me, more or less, when igraph 0.5 with the faster
> > > cohesive.blocks() function will be availabe?
> > >
> > > thank you for your work!
> > >
> > > all the best,
> > > Simone
> > >
> > > Il giorno 02/feb/08, alle ore 23:15, address@hidden ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > I'm all in favor, it seems like it's a universal improvement in
> > > > speed and reliability. I might try to rework it just a little bit  
> > > > so
> > > > that it keeps track of which S and T it's already searched. The
> > > > algorithm is designed to find cutsets between individual s and t
> > > > vertices and does so by incrementally expanding subgraphs around
> > > > each one. So the current implementation will very frequently re-
> > > > searches the exact same subset of nodes. I say either way release
> > > > it, but if I have time it will just add another speed increase.  
> > > > (I'm
> > > > surprised I didn't find this algorithm the first time around!).
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 2, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Gabor Csardi csardi-at-rmki.kfki.hu |
> > > > igraph-help| wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Peter, ok, i've removed the old implementation and included the  
> > > > > new,
> > > > > that seems to work well. (I've reimplemented the new algorithm,  
> > > > > and
> > > > > compared the results on several graphs, and also checked your  
> > > > > code.)
> > > > > This will be in igraph 0.5, if you don't have anything against it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Gabor
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 03:28:16PM +0100, Gabor Csardi wrote:
> > > > > > Peter, thanks, i'll read over the paper(s) and see what to do.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Csardi Gabor <address@hidden>    UNIL DGM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > igraph-help mailing list
> > > > > address@hidden
> > > > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/igraph-help
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > igraph-help mailing list
> > > > address@hidden
> > > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/igraph-help
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > igraph-help mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/igraph-help
> >
> > --
> > Csardi Gabor <address@hidden>    UNIL DGM
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > igraph-help mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/igraph-help
>
> --
> Csardi Gabor <address@hidden>    UNIL DGM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> igraph-help mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/igraph-help