tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post8607246922814920221..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: The emerging field of network biologyWavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-4449600277158208342009-09-23T14:47:53.868-07:002009-09-23T14:47:53.868-07:00Thanks for the reference; I will try to get my han...Thanks for the reference; I will try to get my hands on it. However Barabasi would probably agree with the authors' general analysis that many networks which appear scale free are not so upon further inspection. See:<br />Science, Vol. 325, 24 July 2009, p. 412<br /><br />Like you I have also had a healthy interest in math without too much inclination for it. And yet it provides considerable pleasure and is a worthy pastime.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-44671188232273477792009-09-23T14:25:48.411-07:002009-09-23T14:25:48.411-07:00"the observation that many diverse networks f..."the observation that many diverse networks from protein - protein networks to the INTERNET to academic citation networks, are scale free."<br /><br /> That's certainly the zeitgeist, but look at this.<br /><br /> An article in the May '09 American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 56 pp. 586 - 599 states flatly that the world wide web and the internet do NOT have a scale free topology and that initial measurements purporting to show this were severely flawed. The article is by some heavies at the ATT labs and Caltech -- and tears apart much of the work by Barabasi and Albert.<br /><br /> I've always been interested in mathematics (even though not very good at it) and have subscribed to AMM for years. This is far and away the most polemical thing I've ever seen in it. <br /><br /> RetreadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com