|WikiProject Statistics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Systems||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|A fact from Geometric median appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
1-median of a graph or tree
Do we have a Wikipedia article that explains the median of a graph or tree (i.e., a node that minimises the average distance to all other nodes)? A similar concept is the graph center, which minimises the maximum distance, and facility location problems in graphs are also related. But I couldn't find a page that explicitly mentions the concept of a median of a graph. Median graph is something different. 1-center problem has a lot of relevant links, but they are all red.
Here are some references if someone is interested in writing more about medians of graphs:
- Hakimi, S. L. (1964), "Optimum locations of switching centers and the absolute centers and medians of a graph", Operations Research 12 (3): 450–459, doi:10.1287/opre.12.3.450, JSTOR 168125.
- Goldman, A. J. (1971), "Optimal center location in simple networks", Transportation Science 5 (2): 212–221, doi:10.1287/trsc.5.2.212.
- Alstrup, Stephen; Holm, Jacob; Thorup, Mikkel (2000), "Maintaining center and median in dynamic trees", Proceedings of the SWAT 2000, LNCS 1851, Springer, pp. 46–56, doi:10.1007/3-540-44985-X_6.
- Auletta, Vincenzo; Parente, Domenico; Persiano, Giuseppe (1996), "Dynamic and static algorithms for optimal placement of resources in a tree", Theoretical Computer Science 165 (2): 441–461, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(96)00089-8.
One might also cover more general k-medians; see, e.g.:
- "Minimum k-median". A compendium of NP optimization problems.
I think there are at least enough references to show that the concept is notable enough to have some coverage in Wikipedia. But I am not sure if it is best to create a new article or extend an existing article (e.g., this page). — Miym (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think median graph is less different than you suggest: trees are median graphs, and median graphs are the graphs in which the 1-median of any three vertices is uniquely determined as meeting the obvious lower bound on average distance. Regardless, I think graph-theoretic medians are too separate a topic to be included in this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, but I do not think it makes sense to try to explain the concept of the 1-median of a graph in the median graph article, either. (But if we had an article on graph median, then it would certainly be a good idea to explain the connection between median graphs and graph medians, like you said.) — Miym (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In the passage
- Alfred Weber's name is associated with the more general Fermat–Weber problem due to a discussion of the problem in his 1909 book on facility location.
I changed Fermat-Weber problem to Fermat–Weber problem, but the addition of the wikilink was reverted with the edit summary
- unexplained change of a self-reference to a reference to a different article
Actually the above-quoted sentence makes it clear the the Fermat-Weber problem is more general than the one in this article, so it's not a self-reference to this article but rather refers to a broader problem about which someone has recently created an article. So there ought to be a link to the relevant article. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay if I restore the wikilink now? Duoduoduo (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- But this is a misreading of this sentence. The phrase "the more general problem" in this particular sentence refers to the geometric median, as a generalization of the Fermat point. Additionally, it is not true that "Fermat–Weber problem" unambiguously refers to the weighted version of the problem; rather, some sources use it to refer to the weighted problem (described in the article Weber problem) while other sources use it to refer to the unweighted problem (described here). I've rewritten the intro to clarify that the term is ambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)