Jump to content

Talk:Katz centrality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request status change

[edit]

This article may no longer be an orphan as it has more than 1 and at least 3 incoming links. 14.140.149.65 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)R june[reply]

What happens when α=0?

[edit]

The section "Measuring Katz Centrality" states, "Each path or connection between a pair of nodes is assigned a weight determined by α and the distance between nodes as α^(d − 1)." Looking at the summation formula I don't see how α could ever be raised to a 0th power. However, the Junker text does state "an α of zero results in a centrality that is equivalent to the degree centrality" and I don't see how α=0 could result in anything but a centrality of 0. If α is somehow raised to a 0th power when k=1 then I understand the equivalence but again I don't see how α^0 can arise. Could someone expand the article to clarify the α=0 situation?

Drberg1000 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with Centrality page

[edit]

Hi, this page's double-summation defintion uses (A^k)_{ji}, but the definition on the Centrality page uses (A^k)_{ij}, e.g. the subscripts are reversed. Only one can be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.93.240 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True: fixed the subscripts to match the next formula. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7BD7:2F01:38C4:40F3:5F35:B9AD (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction between sections

[edit]

I may be missing something, but there seems to be a contradiction between the "Measuring Katz Centrality" prose and the "Mathematical Formulation". The former section explains that immediate neighbors are penalized by factor \alpha^0. The latter section indicates that immediate neighbors (k=1) are penalized by factor \alpha^1. I haven't researched this thoroughly, but it seems that while \alpha^0 for immediate neighbors is intuitively desirable, \alpha^1 is more amenable to a linear algebra solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.93.240 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True: just fixed the section (checked in Katz's paper). --Toobaz (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]