"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
