Talk:Assortativity

Structural disassortativity section doesn't make sense to me

The way it is written now, it does not make much sense. Namely, it is not obvious what it is talking about. What I get from that is that there can be some problem causing assortativity to be detected when it is not there but that is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Tětek (talk • contribs) 06:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error in while editing

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assortativity&action=submit, from 91.198.174.43 via sq62.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to () Error: ERR_CANNOT_FORWARD, errno [No Error] at Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:42:43 GMT Bldutta (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many faults and needs a good seeing-to!

--84.9.64.189 (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Log^2

Is there consensus? Does Log^2 x = Log(Log x), or does Log^2 x = (Log x)^2 as in the terrible trig function notation.69.138.160.129 (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be good to get an answer to this. I wonder what the Wikipedia math experts would say. (e.g., is there some consensus at the Math portal, Math portal?) There might well be more to it (more "to know", perhaps) than my limited knowledge "at this time".

My 0.02 on it: The last line of the "[...]real_networks" section -- (of the current "most recent" version of the article) -- contains an ambiguous "<math>...</math>".. construct, saying

" $(\log ^{2}N)/N$ "

. Now, there might well be some "general principle" of laziness in math, that everyone in the field is familiar with. This "general principle" of how to save seven keystrokes, or 3 syllables, or something like that, probably specifies that when someone writes the above [IMHO] ambiguous "<math>" construct, it always means either [a]

" $(\log(\log N))/N$ "

or [b]

" $(\log N)^{2}/N$ "

. But, I do not know whether it always means [a], or it always means [b]. Maybe it's not just "laziness" -- maybe the less-than-rigorous terminology (used both in speaking and in writing) gives enjoyment to some persons, who know what it means while some other persons do not know what it means.

But I don't care about that. I am not here to debate the sociology of notation conventions in math. In my opinion, it would be better to simply use (something like) either [a]

" $(\log(\log N))/N$ "

or [b]

" $(\log N)^{2}/N$ "

in the article. IMHO our goal here is not (or, should not be) the use of notations that are confusing [only] to the uninitiated.

Just my 0.02. YMMV... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article incomplete/wrong

The article, though it looks good at first glance, it is incomplete and cannot be used as is. Most likely it also contains error.

In particular, symbols used in the definition (formula) are not explained. Moreover it seems that i,j are node names.... but later they are multiplied._ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assortativity does not nesssarily result from a preference.

Assortativity does not nesssarily result from a preference. It can also arise because of other mechanisms. It should say tendency instead of preference.

possible missing modifier for the the word "degree"

The first sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assortativity&oldid=597775433#Assortativity_coefficient says [quote:]

"The assortativity coefficient is the Pearson correlation coefficient of degree between pairs of linked nodes.[2]".

It appears that there is something missing in the phrase "of degree" in that sentence. (See, e.g., Pearson_correlation_coefficient#Testing_using_Student.27s_t-distribution where it says, in part of a sentence, [quote:]

"with degrees of freedom n − 2.".

See also Degree_(graph_theory) and Degree of a polynomial). I suspect that the phrase "of degree" [quoted above], really should say "of degree [something]", -- like, "of degree $q_{k}$ ", or "of degree $q_{k}-2$ ", or "of degree $q_{k-2}$ ".

Just a guess (or three), from --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance that this might help, it appears that the phrase "of degree" was added May 19, 2010 ... via this edit, just 3 minutes after this other edit (which also involved the word "degree"), apparently from the same editor -- or at least, using the same IP address, namely 67.207.96.194. HTH... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible clue: from the sentence "Hence, positive values of r indicate a correlation between nodes of similar degree, while negative values indicate relationships between nodes of different degree.", I conclude that all (or "most") uses of the word "degree" here, are, or should be, instances of the "graph theory" meaning of the word "degree". (right?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]