Talk:List of people by Erdős number/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notes for New Names

I propose keeping this section for noting new names added to the list. Pete St.John (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Joseph Sifakis (3), Turing Award 2007: references to some papers with Amir Pnueli (2) can be found on his home page [1].82.233.123.121 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Istvan Beck. I confirmed this as far as Planet Math.
• Bruss seems to be [2]. Pete St.John (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I just added David P. Dobkin and Roger W. Brockett. Note, please, the color of the links. According to the AMS calculator, Dobkin has EN=2 due to collaboration with Frances Yao, and Brockett has EN=3 due to collaboration with Dobkin. Also added: Kurt Mehlhorn (#2, via Dieter Kratsch). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• T Marchant (redlink) seems to be this at genealogy.ams. Pete St.John (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Kohayakawa (red link) would seem to be this genealogy.
• Louis V. Quintas (2), Mark Stehlik (3) (Both reds, confirm via searching link from Erdos, P to Stehlik, Mark here) Bkrausz (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Louis is a 2 with a lot of papers listed here, I'd imagine with many not listed as 3s here
• The new redlink D.K. Ray-Chaudhuri is Dijendra Kumar Ray-Chaudhuri, verified as Erdős number 2 through ENP. One of the inventors of BCH codes, so may be notable. Ntsimp (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yotam Livny would be this; I dropped a note at the Anon IP contributor's talk page (regarding NTSimp's effort via MathSciNet). Pete St.John (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Derek Corneil (added 14 March 2008) is a graph theorist and former chairman of the computer science dept. at the University of Toronto. Erdős 2 according to the ENP. Roger Hui (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• a new redlink, Bribiesca, is an administrator at a university in Mexico (I read Spanish at about the 8th-grade level) and a coauthor of a Oxford U Press book, here. Pete St.John (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be Barradas, his paternal surname. That's how it's sorted. Ntsimp (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to MathSciNet, Michael L. Littman is 3 (via K. B. Chilakamarri and Péter Hamburger). --Delirium (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Soon after Ram Pathria was added to the list (as R.K. Pathria), someone added Surjit Singh. There is a Surjit Singh with Erdős number 3 per MathSciNet, a co-author of Ram Pathria—but it's not the same person as Surjit Singh, a deceased athlete. As far as I can tell, the physicist Surjit Singh doesn't have an article. I am loath to remove verifiable people from the list for non-notability, but maybe that's the right way to handle this? Ntsimp (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we should remove any names that are not sufficiently notable. I'm very tempted to go through and remove all the redlinks, though many of them are likely notable, as a clearer line between what we should and shouldn't include. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• I couldn't find Istvan Beck here. Does aonyone knows who he is? Kope (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, he's in the ENP lists. Ntsimp (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • He appears to belong to the mathematics department of the University of Stavanger. His joint paper with Erdős is MR1368376. He's only published 18 papers in MathSciNet, the most recent in 1995, but MR0944156 was well-cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Peter Bergmann has just been added to the number 2 list. Here we have another case where the two main sources disagree. He's not in the ENP lists, but the MathSciNet search says he has number 2 due to a joint work with Ernst G. Straus, et al, "Working with Einstein". Sounds like a work of history/biography/memoir, so it wouldn't meet the ENP criteria. Should we keep it per the one source? Ntsimp (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yorick Wilks has just been added as number 2. He's not in the ENP lists, and MathSciNet gives him an Erdős number of 5. Is there any source for the claim that his Erdős number is 2? Ntsimp (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Harary, Frank; Wilks, Yorick (1992), On unidirectional linguistic comprehension, Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University AdamFunk (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Tim Gowers is not on the list. I would assume he is a number two at the most, like Imre Leader and Ben Green. Surely he published with Bollobas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The MathSciNet calculator says distance four: Gowers - Bernard Maurey - Bernd Carl - Endre Makai, Jr. - Paul Erdős. I can't find anything co-authored with Bollobas. In fact, the only co-authors I found in Google scholar were Maurey and Julia Wolf (for an unpublished preprint, arXiv:0711.0185), and the MathSciNet calculator doesn't know anything about Wolf. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Gowers himself states that his Erdös number is 4.Hermel (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Jayme Luiz Szwarcfiter (just added as a redlink to #2 by an anonymous IP user) is listed by MathSciNet as having EN=2 via John Adrian Bondy: MR2154538 and MR0317991. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Janusz Brzozowski (computer scientist) has distance at most 2 via a joint paper with Jeffrey Shallit: Janusz A. Brzozowski, Elyot Grant, Jeffrey Shallit: Closures in Formal Languages and Kuratowski's Theorem. International Conference on Developments in Language Theory 2009:125-144, LNCS. Hermel (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• I just added Paul Lemke with Erdos number 1. He has a graph named after him, which seems sufficient to qualify him as notable. (131.212.156.10 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC))
  • Any citation for a joint paper with Erdős? Both our sources give him Erdős number 2. Ntsimp (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for that; I think you're right. I guess the Erdös-Lemke conjecture was from a personal communication and not a paper, and I misunderstood the ENP file the first time. Thanks for the correction! (131.212.156.10 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC))
• According to MathSciNet, Rajeev Alur has number 3, via the path R.A./Hagit Attiya/Shlomo Moran/P.E. Hermel (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Nayandeep Deka Baruah of Tezpur University has an Erdos number of 3 for having written a paper with Bruce C. Berndt who in turn has written a paper with Sarvadaman Chowla, a direct collaborator of Prof. Erdos. So why can't his name be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googolplexideas (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We haven't been including names with Erdős number 3 unless they are of people who are independently signoficant enough (generally, as measured by the standards in WP:PROF) to have their own Wikipedia article and about whom that article has already been written. In Baruah's case, the citation record in Google scholar looks too weak to pass criterion #1 of WP:PROF, but maybe he passes another of the criteria? In any case, one should wait for an article to be created before creating the link to it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• An IP just added Frederick Bagemihl (distance 1, MR0058705) and Paul Humke (distance 2, MR0377835). Looks ok to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Added Mike Piff who wrote a paper with Dominic Welsh and Paul in the late sixties following a visit to Oxford. (On the official list, but Dominic isn't!) Mike brings in Pickering, Cannings, Vickers as #2s, but adding D J A Welsh will add a whole tranche of new additions as #2. 51kwad (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Neither of our sources have this; in particular, the ENP doesn't have either of them listed as a collaborator of Erdős. Do you have a citation for the joint paper? Ntsimp (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Mea culpa. Erdos withdrew his name from the paper in question before publication. 51kwad (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Added Michael Giudici as a red link with Erdős number 2, via http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=129033 and Peter Cameron who is already listed as a #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.225.29 (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• added Andrej Dujella at 2 who published with Florian Luca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weburbia (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I found many Asian mathematicians who have 2 or 3 Erdős number.

See This. --Sugyoin (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks to be derived from MathSciNet, so the numbers are probably valid. But we need individual Wikipedia articles about them before they can be added to the list. (And to have articles, they need to pass our standards for academic notability, for which having a low Erdős number doesn't help.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Living people?

Shall we put a cross next to dead people or make living people marked somehow? A lot of people are curious about who is alive so that they can publish with them. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If they're on the list, they have an article. Ntsimp (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I felt my curiosity on this topic was kind of morbid, but I admit that I was also wondering how many Erdos 1 people are still alive. I actually know a few people with low numbers... As long as some of the 1s are still publishing, it is possible to earn a 2. Shanen (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Kolmogorov and Riemann

I've just removed the recent additions of Andrey Kolmogorov to #2 and Bernhard Riemann to #3. Both of these numbers are confirmed by the MathSciNet collaboration distance calculator, but neither one seems valid to me. It claims Kolmogorov was a co-author of Alfréd Rényi, but it looks like they just edited a journal together. The ENP gives Kolmogorov #4. The situation for Riemann is even more clear. He's listed as a co-author of Edmund Landau, due to a collection of monographs that happens to include one of each of theirs. That shouldn't make them co-authors by anyone's definition. Ntsimp (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a regrettable situation. If we are to accept this, then the article's current text "For more complete listings of Erdős numbers, see the databases maintained by the Erdős Number Project or the collaboration distance calculator maintained by the American Mathematical Society" should be updated to reflect the implication that the results of the collaboration distance calculator are not authoritative. Lklundin (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ntsimp: You reverted this edit with the summary "Kolmogorov's EN is 4". Your above statement to the effect that "Kolmogorov's EN is 4" is WP:OR based on WP:PRIMARY sources and is as such not a valid justification for the revert. Please self-revert your edit or cite a proper WP:RS. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand, Lklundin. Do you want the list to show Kolmogorov with Erdős number 2, on the basis of the joint editorship shown by the MathSciNet calculator? Ntsimp (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That is how WP:RS works - with the MathSciNet calculator being listed as the relevant, secondary source at Erdős_number#Definition_and_application_in_mathematics: "The American Mathematical Society provides a free online tool to determine the Erdős number of every mathematical author listed in the Mathematical Reviews catalogue". Editors cannot use their own analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources to evaluate inclusion criteria for a Wikipedia article such as this one, such analysis would be WP:OR. If another secondary WP:RS provides a different Erdős number for a given candidate for inclusion here, then a discussion of how to handle the conflicting sources can take place among editors. Lklundin (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if we are required to blindly follow what the calculator says rather than applying any intelligence to the result (a position I strongly disagree with) the ENP data rather than the MathSciNet calculator is the definitive source for EN ≤ 2. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that all participants in this discussion have very high edit counts, how is it even possible that we have to clarify what is WP:OR and connect the issue with 'intelligence'? As I previously stated, if for a given candidate for inclusion there is indeed more than one secondary WP:RS with conflicting information, then this is the place to reconcile such a discrepancy. So it would be helpful for any interested editor to bring forward such specific WP:RS to cite. Further, if we indeed end up with an example where the MathSciNet calculator is superseded by a different source, then also the explanation in the article that the EN can be derived from the MathSciNet calculator needs to be adjusted accordingly. Lklundin (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Since you are actually mentioned on this page, an actual WP:COI exists. So while it is fine that you provide benign assistance, such as pointing to a relevant WP:RS it is really not proper for you to express your personal judgment of a WP:RS central to the article, effectively arguing whether another person should be mentioned here. Lklundin (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a COI because I belong to a set of 11,000 people? Really?? Next you'll tell me that I shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all, and that it should be left only for people with no knowledge of the subject areas to edit. You're just digging your hole of bad ideas deeper. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The relevant number (the EN=2 entries in this article) is an order of magnitude smaller. Your reaction to my concern is noted. Lklundin (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is the calculator a secondary source? It's a tool for running queries on a database, some of whose entries are not joint publications in the sense of the Erdős number. So many of its results are relevant to this list, but some are not. Ntsimp (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Without considering whether the MathSciNet calculator is indeed a secondary source, I will note that this does not change the original observation: Editors cannot use their own analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources to evaluate inclusion criteria for a Wikipedia article such as this one, such analysis would be WP:OR. Lklundin (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The ENP says Kolmogorov's EN is 4. I'm quoting, not analyzing. Ntsimp (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Splendid, the good professor Grossman's Erdős project is a WP:RS for this. Similarly, University of Bayreuth says that Bernhard Riemann's EN is 6 (thereby giving a 7 to his mentor C.F. Gauss).[3]

Consequently, also any Erdős number found by the MathSciNet calculator that includes in the path Kolmogorov or Riemann will be misleading. This is the case for e.g. Aleksandr Danilovich Aleksandrov whom I first added here with EN=3 and then removed again as a consequence of this discussion.

Hopefully, these exceptions are limited. If not, we should update the article to reflect that fact regarding the already mentioned MathSciNet calculator.

For now, I think it is enough to give future editors a chance to not repeat my editing mistakes. For this I would suggest to create a new section here on this talk page e.g. "Exceptions to the MathSciNet calculator results", that would list references to Erdős numbers that are in conflict with those from the MathSciNet calculator - listing also additional, notable (i.e. non-redlinked) persons affected by this, such as the above Aleksandrov. If no one objects or presents a better idea (within some days), I will go ahead and create such a section. Lklundin (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

PS. On reflection - and upon seeing more exceptions listed on this talk page, I think a better idea is to just keep documenting the exceptions as above. Then on the main page we insert a comment - invisible to the reader - at the place where per the MathSciNet calculator the inclusion should have been, to the effect that the Talk page mentions a different EN. I have gone ahead and done this for Kolmogorov. Lklundin (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hank Aaron

Is it worth mentioning that Hank Aaron arguably has an Erdős number of 1? It's a well-sourced anecdote. Narky Blert (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a well-known joke, but most sources restrict the Erdős number to actual academic collaboration. Ntsimp (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)