File talk:Hidden-node.svg

Correct me if I am wrong, but the circles for A and B (which I assume symbolize wireless connection range) overlap each other, which would imply that they indeed can see each other - which is not the situation the caption describes (that they are "hidden from each other").

Could it be an SVG rendering error on my client's side, or is the image incorrect? Cybotoro 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The circles do indeed represent the range of each node, and the circles for A & B do indeed overlap. But, since neither A nor B is within the circle centred on the other, neither of them is within range of the other. The area of the overlap represents the area where a node (in this case the hub [=WiFi access point]) can see both A & B.

E.G.: If each node has a range of 100m (i.e. the radius of each circle is 100m,) and A & B are 150m apart, they will not be able to see each other, but a node half-way between the two (i.e. 75m from each) will be within range of both and therefore be able to see both. The "half-way" node can sit anywhere in the area of the overlap in the image and see both.

(At least, that's what I meant to show when I created the diagram...) -- AJR | Talk 22:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, this picture is both wrong and makes no sense, because there is a case where there exists a union between A and B. Even-though there is a case where A union B exists, but only when A union B union C. To be correct, there must be no cases where A union B intersect. If the A and B circles did not overlap at all, that would be better.

there is no case where A is union with B Kassorlae (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an incorrect use of the Venn diagram: there exists a union between the two sets A and B (which represent the radio range of devices A and B). Thus there exists some case where both A and B are in radio range of each other, reductio ad absurdum. I suggest the newly proposed diagram replace the current incorrect one. Hiken86 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, this diagram is confusing the article. 116.212.205.74 (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, image needs to be deleted, and remade. --75.85.55.138 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was confused, too. --Janke | Talk 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]