Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2006
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2006

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Bizarre results with TreePlot

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg64937] Re: Bizarre results with TreePlot
  • From: "Scout" <Scout at nodomain.com>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:00:00 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <dujs54$940$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

"Renan" <renan.birck at gmail.com>
 news:dujs54$940$1 at smc.vnet.net...
> Hello MathGroup,
>
> From DiscreteMath`GraphPlot` help:
>
> (Apologies if there are any typos: I was unable to get it to
> copy/paste without the formatting tags)
>
> "This plots a binary tree:
>
> g = Flatten[Table[{i -> 2*i, i -> 2*i + 1}, {i, 2^4 - 1}]];
> TreePlot[g];"
>
> Graphics::gprim: DiscreteMath`Tree`Private`TreePlot0[1->3,-1,1] was
> encountered where a Graphics primitive or directive was expected.
> [More...]
>
> Graphics::gprim: DiscreteMath`Tree`Private`TreePlot0[2->4,-0.928571,1]
> was encountered where a Graphics primitive or directive was expected.
> [More...]
>
> Graphics::gprim: DiscreteMath`Tree`Private`TreePlot0[2->5,-0.928571,1]
> was encountered where a Graphics primitive or directive was expected.
> [More...]
>
> Now, I don't understand why this gives wrong result, if it was copied
> straight from the help file .
>
> Any clues? This is Mathematica 5.2 on Windows.
>
> Thanks,
> Renan
>

Hi Renan,

    << DiscreteMath`GraphPlot`
    g = Flatten[Table[{i -> 2*i, i -> 2*i + 1}, {i, 2^4 - 1}]];
    TreePlot[g]
....
it works fine on Math5.2.
At first,did you load the GraphPlot package?

Cheers,
    ~Scout~


  • Prev by Date: Re: Memory operations
  • Next by Date: Open Source IMTEK Mathematica Supplement (IMS)
  • Previous by thread: Re: Bizarre results with TreePlot
  • Next by thread: Re: Bizarre results with TreePlot