Ahhhhh! Attached is a stripped down .tex file that contains figures 1[ab], 2[ab] and 3[abcd]. I've got labels attached to the various subfigures. I reference these labels in the text.
References to figure 2(a) comes out as figure 3(a) and references to figure 3(a) come out as figure 4(a). The actual (a), (b) doesn't matter, but the main figure entry is incremented by one. See attached .dvi file in case this is a bug with my version of the subfigure package (version 2.1.4). Can some TeX guru help me out? -- Angus
test.dvi
Description: TeX dvi file
\documentclass[english]{article}
\usepackage{ae}
\usepackage{aecompl}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{a4wide}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{babel}
\begin{document}
\section{Introduction}
shown in figure~\ref{cap:assemblage}\ldots{}
%
\begin{figure}
\caption{\label{cap:assemblage}Polyhedra assembled into blocks}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[A 3D assemblage of truncated octahedra]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\rule{3em}{0ex}
\subfigure[A 2D assemblage of hexagons]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\ldots{}
\section{The model}
\ldots{}An example of such a path through a 2D block is shown in
figure~\ref{cap:minimize E2}. \ldots{} The resulting tree is shown
in figure~\ref{cap:minimize E3}. \ldots{}
%
\begin{figure}
\caption{Comparison of the effects of optimization of $E_{2}$ and of $E_{3}$.}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[\label{cap:minimize E2}Minimization of $E_{2}$]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\rule{3em}{0ex}
\subfigure[\label{cap:minimize E3}Minimization of $E_{3}$]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
What is interesting here \ldots{}
\ldots{} paths constructed through the 2D block of figure~\ref{cap:assemblage}
are shown in figure~\ref{cap:example 2D trees}\ldots{}
%
\begin{figure}
\caption{\label{cap:example 2D trees}Example modifications of a 2D network}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[\label{cap:initial 2D network}
The initial, random network. \newline
$N_{\text{terminal}}=138$ , $\bar{\ell}=13.3$
]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\rule{3em}{0ex}
\subfigure[\label{cap:minimize E3 lambda 0}
Minimization of $E$ with $\lambda=0.0$ .\newline
$N_{\text{terminal}}=94$ , $\bar{\ell}=10.7$
]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[\label{cap:minimize E3 lambda 1.0}
Minimization of $E$ with $\lambda=1.0$ .\newline
$N_{\text{terminal}}=193$ , $\bar{\ell}=20.9$
]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\rule{3em}{0ex}
\subfigure[\label{cap:minimize E3 lambda 0.1}
Minimization of $E$ with $\lambda=0.1$.
\newline$N_{\text{terminal}}=189$, $\bar{\ell}=11.2$
]{
\rule{15em}{10em}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{cap:minimize E3 lambda 0} is identical to
figure~\ref{cap:minimize E3}\ldots{} Nonetheless, their figure~3(c)
is very similar to my figure~\ref{cap:minimize E2}\ldots{}
\end{document}
