Talk:Metcalfe's law
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 166.205.147.19 in topic Metcalf's clarification.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metcalfe's law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 years  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How you measure that value?
editValue can be measured as number of users using the system. But I am not sure whether there is any precise meaning of value in the context of Metcalfe's law.
Perhaps it would be better to explain that the value of a system is a function of the number of users, then describe the nature of that function, without being so specific.
[--anon.]
- Are all nodes of value?
- Can some nodes even represent negative value?
- A negative value node might be defined as being an influence that effectively suppresses the value of interconnectivity by injecting into the network negative interference.
- An example on a computer network might be SPAM, virii, Denial of Service attacks, etc. An example on a human level might be the annoying guy on a chat room that "flames" other members so that discussions get no where as members react to what the flamers says (or worse, leave the network).
- As more connections are made, the likelihood of a negative node, or nodes, becoming part of the network increases. This would result in an increase in interference and a suppression of value gained from being connected to more nodes on the network.
- [--other anon.]
- Odlyzko and Tilly themselves address the issue of some nodes in a network which subtract from its value (spammers, etc.) as well as the negative value of being faced with too many choices. They refer to two sources (McAfee and Oliveau 2002, Rohlfs 2001) which make the same observation. Maybe in the paragraph about Odlyzko and Tilly there should be a reference to this point? Perhaps, "Some connections are even of negative value, for example those which result in unwanted calls from telemarketers." [--anonymous]
- what would be a formula to convert a network size back to an original number of people (or a close estimate)? [--another anon.]
Metcalf's clarification.
editIt states that 1 telephone can make 2 connection and 5 telphones can make 10 connections... It seems to me that 2 telephones to make 2 connections. 5 phones can connect to 20 connections. The falacy is directional. Metcalfe states 2 phones can make a single connection. phone 1 to phone 2. Each phone can call the other etc. A to B is one connection and B to A is another connection. It can not be stated the A to B and B to A are the same. How could it be written otherwise?