On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM, jpearl01 <joshea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > There was an error in the file... an extraneous comma. That's taken care of. > however, my tree prints out an image that doesn't seem like a mst. Attached > is the csv file I used...
Well, it looks definitely a tree to me. > http://www.nabble.com/file/p22938299/sp_matrix.csv sp_matrix.csv > > I'd like it to look something like the image file also attached... > http://www.nabble.com/file/p22938299/2006-08-27_MST.png 2006-08-27_MST.png > > Is there a different layout that would accomplish that? Or if not that > exactly, one that would help make the results a little clearer? I am not sure what you mean. Of course you can plot it using different layouts, e.g. with layout.reingold.tilford (after choosing the root vertex in some way) and then it looks like a usual tree plot, but why would that be any better? Unless there is some external information about the graph (e.g. spatial positions of the nodes, or a distinguished root vertex), the layout on the image is just as good as the others. Gabor > Thanks for all the help! > ~josh > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Minimum-Spanning-Tree-tp22934813p22938299.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > -- Gabor Csardi <gabor.csa...@unil.ch> UNIL DGM ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
