in reply to Re: OT(ish) - Best Search Algorithm
in thread OT(ish) - Best Search Algorithm

I don't think that'll work. People can have more friends than just two. They can even share more friends than 2.

For example, A is befriended with B, which is befriended with C and E, where C is befriended with D, and D befriended with A (the original circle), but E is also befriended with F which in turn is befriended with A.

So there's 2 circles of friends, and A and B are in both: A-B-C-D-A and A-B-E-F-A.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: OT(ish) - Best Search Algorithm
by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 15, 2007 at 11:01 UTC

    Your example still fits with my (tentative) definition. For both circles, it is true that each member has exactly two friendship relations in it. My definition does not say anything about the number of overall friendship relations on the whole site, but only about friendship relations within a circle.

    But I think I need a second thing in the definition, but I'm not sure which one is "better":

    • A "circle of friends" must have at least three members
    • There must be at least one person for every member of the circle without a direct "friend" relation

    The two are not equivalent, because the first rule allows circles of three persons, while the latter allows circles starting at four members.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom