DOWLOAD-DESKTOP-NOTEBOOK.nb (96.4 KB)
9 Likes
– you have earned Featured Contributor Badge 
Your exceptional post has been selected for our editorial column Staff Picks http://wolfr.am/StaffPicks and Your Profile is now distinguished by a Featured Contributor Badge and is displayed on the Featured Contributor Board. Thank you!
Do you think all graph products should be implemented using WeightedAdjacencyMatrix instead to claim that they support weighted graphs too (unlike it is now)?
1 Like
The definitions I came across all assumed that the adjacency matrices are unweighted. (Look at e.g. the definition for the conormal/disjunctive product, which explicitly assumes 0-1 matrices.) There may be a way to modify these to work consistently for weighted matrices, but I am not aware of how to do so.
1 Like
But consistency is already there, WeightedAdjacencyMatrix is the same as AdjacencyMatrix for not weighted graphs, so seems like replacing AdjacencyMatrix with WeightedAdjacencyMatrix and AdjacencyGraph with WeightedAdjacencyGraph (after replacing 0 with Infinity, which I find to be weird inconsistency between two functions) is a natural generalization for all the products.