Talk:Erdős–Bacon number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: Start Class Low Priority  Field: General
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.

Contents

[edit] Ken Keeler/Jeff Westerbrook

Both Ken Keeler and Jeff Westerbrook have finite Erdos Numbers and, having both worked was writers on the Simpsons, know someone who knows Kevin Bacon. Does this qualify them?

[edit] God, I love this article

I know it's trivial as hell, but I love the line about Erdos and Bacon co-authoring a mathematics paper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.203.142 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article a stub?

Why is this article a stub? I realize that it is short. But how much more can, or should, be said about this topic in an encyclopedia? I think it should qualify as a full-fledged article. Finell (Talk) 07:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections/updates

My Erdos-Bacon number is 5. I have two paths giving an Erdos number of 3: Erdos-Kac-Gutkin-Newton; Erdos-Diaconis-Keller-Newton. My Bacon number of 2 arises because I was in the 1970's sleeper `Breaking Away' with Daniel Stern, whose Bacon number is 1 as he was in Diner with Kevin Bacon. Pknewton 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked your Erdős number and I'm more-or-less convinced (although I didn't look very closely), but you don't seem to be credited in the full cast and crew of Breaking Away. I have assumed that your last name, as credited in this film, would be Newton - or is it under some other name maybe? --Cheeser1 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Kleitman is apparently not in Good Will Hunting. http://www.oakland.edu/enp/related.html claims that he is, but links to a photoshopped image.

Update: There is a review of Good Will Hunting with a sidebar by Kleitman that makes clear he does appear in the final version:
Good Will Hunting, written by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, directed by Gus Van Sant.
Review by Mark Saul, "Good Will Hunting," with sidebar by Daniel J. Kleitman, Notices of the AMS, April 1998 (85KB)
http://0-www.ams.org.library.uor.edu/notices/199804/review-saul.pdf
I'll come back later and try to figure out how to add this footnote. --Dylan Thurston 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave Bayer's Erdős number appears to be 2 now, since Persi Diaconis posthumously published a paper with Erdős. (Anybody know the history?) --Dylan Thurston 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Erdős had a Bacon number of 4 (from N is a Number) [1]. Since he has an Erdős number of 0, he would then have an Erdős-Bacon number of 4.

According to Bacon number, this is a coincidence in names, so I've noted it as such.

The article mentions that some guy with an Erdős-Bacon number of 5 had the lowest such number for some time: how is this possible? --Saforrest 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

While there is Erdos-Bacon number for Erdos there is no discussion on Kevin Bacon number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.207 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Platt

I removed the section on John Platt, since he has not appeared in a film and thus does not have a Bacon number. The removed material was as follows:

John Platt, a senior researcher at Microsoft, received the 2005 Scientific and Technical Achievement Oscar from Rachel McAdams. Rachel McAdams was in "My Name is Tanino" with Beau Starr. Beau Starr was in "Where the Truth Lies" with Kevin Bacon, giving Platt a Kevin Bacon number of 3. He co-authored a paper with John Shawe-Taylor, who wrote a paper with Christopher Godsil, who wrote a paper with Erdős, giving Platt an Erdős number of 3. Thus John Platt has an Erdős-Bacon number of 6.

Added: Reference for the televised, but I think non-film, appearence of Platt with McAdams that likely led to the above being included: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/261185_msftaward01.html )

[edit] Diaconis and Bayer

I believe that Persi Diaconis did not collaborate with Erdős. According to Diaconis' web page [2], he merely contributed to a book celebrating Erdős' birthday. Diaconis is also absent from a comprehensive list of Erdős' publications [3]. Someone more familiar with the works of Erdős should verify and correct this. Depending on its correctness, either Persi Diaconis or Dave Bayer will need to be fixed, too. Calbaer 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this section to its state prior to Dylan Thurston's unsourced claim of a lower Erdős number. Bayer is now listed with an Erdős-Bacon number of 5.Calbaer 19:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears Erdős cowrote a technical report with Diaconis in 1977 that was published in a 2004 lecture collection, so I changed it back, using the most liberal definition of an Erdős number as a mathematical paper with common authors, regardless of method of publication. I included this information since otherwise someone else might look up Diaconis' publication list and make the same reversion. Calbaer 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danica McKellar as only actor/actress?

Is this accurate? Other actors have been in doctoral programs (Bill Cosby, Mayim Bialik, Alice Garner) and had professorships (Ben Stein) so presumably someone else has a finite, if large, Erdős-Bacon number. Calbaer 01:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Stein sounds the most plausible as economics dovetails to math and he was in a film with Kevin Bacon so has a Bacon number of 1.[4] He might have a lower one than even McKellar, but he'd need an Erdos number of 4 or less for that. The others may have an Erdos-Bacon number, but they need to have published something not just been in a program. Most likely McKellar's would remain lower than those named as her Bacon number is equal to their's and publishing in math likely gives her a lower Erdos number than them. I think that's the interest there that she is published in math and has a Bacon number of 2. Cosby's doctorate seems to have been honorary.--T. Anthony 16:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are some economists with Erdős numbers 5 and under if Ben Stein wrote a paper with any of them he'd be equal or lower than McKellar: Paul A. Samuelson, Kenneth J. Arrow, Tjalling C. Koopmans, Herbert A. Simon, Oskar Morgenstern, Gerard Debreu, Franco Modigliani, Robert M. Solow, Harry M. Markowitz, Merton H. Miller, John F. Nash, James J. Heckman, and Robert J. Aumann. Likewise he wrote something with his Dad Herbert Stein so if Herbert connects to one of the "less than 4" names there Ben could also equal McKellar. Anyone know how to check?--T. Anthony 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Cosby's was technically honorary. He wrote a thesis, albeit one analyzing his own show. I'll write Stein and see if I can get a Curriculum vitae.... Calbaer 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Cosby legitimately earned a Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.) from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1977. Yes, his dissertation was about his own show (Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids) but that show was designed to be educational; there is nothing wrong (or unique) about a dissertation analyzing the author's own work in the same field of inquiry.
Stein didn't answer, though I suppose I could try again. And, although this is all in fun, we might want some definitions here. We've expanded Bacon numbers to nonactors. Brian Greene appeared as himself, Dave Bayer and Daniel Kleitman appeared in nonspeaking roles as one of a crowd, although the former was, I believe, credited. We've expanded Erdos numbers to coauthors of technical reports and chapters. Diaconis' paper was never peer reviewed. I think it's more fun to use these relaxed definitions — otherwise only Danica McKellar would have a defined number — but it's still good to have some definitions. Does Natalie Portman count for her contributions to The Case for Israel? Do we include crew? Calbaer 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Portman does count, even using solely published academic papers (and, of course, starring roles in films). I added her, though if someone can reduce her number, that would be an improvement. Calbaer 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertrand Russell?

I believe he was a mathematician to a large extent correct? Well Bertrand Russell has a Bacon number of 3.[5](I checked to make sure it's the right Russell) Does he have an Erdos Number?--T. Anthony 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Russell collaborated little so doesn't work. I found another that's more concrete. Richard Feynman has a Bacon number of three[6] and an Erdos Number of 3[7] giving him an Erdős-Bacon number of six. Unfortunately that's equal to McKellar's, but still this is sort of fun. I'm looking to see if Ben Stein has an Erdos number.--T. Anthony 03:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There are two men named Matthew Skala, one with an Erdos number of 3 and one with a Bacon number of 3.67.158.76.126 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Richard Feynman is only nonactor (mentioned here) to have a finite, undisputable Erdős-Bacon number (since his role wasn't in a documentary nor as an extra nor as "himself"). I'll add it. Calbaer 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Russell can be viewed as having a Erdos number of 3 [8]:
It would have been nice to find an Erdös number for the great twentieth century mathematician, philosopher, and activist Bertrand Russell. However, he collaborated very little, as did his coauthor Alfred North Whitehead. Thus we can't find a path using research articles. However, Sachi Sri Kantha points out the following, which also would give small Erdös numbers to several other prominent scientists: "Both Russell and Albert Einstein have impeccable credentials as mathematicians; equally impeccable are their credentials as anti-establishment peace activists against militarism and warfare. They authored the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955, which was the last public document authored by Einstein, before his death. Though it is not a mathematical paper. this Russell-Einstein Manifesto is a valid collaboration of two peace activist scientists, given the tenor of McCarthy era. It is also counted as one of Russell's publication [source: A Bibliography of Bertrand Russell, vol.II, Serial Publications 1890-1990, by K.Blackwell and H.Ruja, Routledge, London, 1994, pp.194-196]. The specific title is TEXTS OF SCIENTISTS' APPEAL FOR ABOLITION OF WAR, New York Times, 10 July 1955, p.25. This was the original citation, and it had been reproduced umpteen times in other journals, magazines and newspapers. The worth of this Russell-Einstein Manifesto was that according to the citation in the bibliography: 'The entire Rusell-Einstein manifesto with Russell's prefatory remarks. The other signatories, besides Einstein, were Max Born, P.W.Bridgman, L.Infeld, F.Joliot-Curie, Linus Pauling, H.J.Muller, C.F.Powell, J.Rotblat and Hideko Yukawa.' Among these, at the time of its release, all except Einstein's collaborator Infeld and Rotblat were Nobelists in science. Later in 1995, Rotblat received the Nobel Peace Prize. Thus other Nobelists like Bridgman (physics 1946), Joliot-Curie (chemistry, 1935), H.J.Muller (medicine, 1946), Powell (physics, 1950), Rotblat (peace, 1995) and Yukawa (physics, 1949), all of whom have not been included in your current list of Erdos Number Nobelists, receive an Erdos Number of 3, courtesy of Einstein. Since Russell was also the only mathematician who received the Nobel literature prize, this Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955 is also indicative of his eminent stature as a literateur." 128.193.37.226 00:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's quite a disclaimer! Also, the Oracle of Bacon doesn't note what the links to IMDb do: that one of the links is through archival footage. Calbaer 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waking Life

Apparently, Richard Linklater, who appeared in Waking Life (and directed it) has a Bacon number of 2:

Richard Linklater was in Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996) with John Doman John Doman was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon

from the Oracle of Bacon.

Robert Solomon, David Sosa, Otto Hofmann, Aklilu Gebrewold, and Caveh Zahedi are all academics and may have finite Erdos numbers, and all appeared in this film (primarily as themselves), so they may have finite numbers as well.

[edit] Anyone else?

Where else to look beyond the eight (really seven) mentioned here? Many statesmen of the world both have Ph.D.s and have appeared in documentaries. Americans such as George Schultz, Woodrow Wilson, Condoleezza Rice, and Henry Kissinger, as well as Asians such as Manmohan Singh (India, economics), Mahmoud Abbas (Palestinian Authority, history), and Mohammad Reza Aref (Iran, electrical engineering) might be good candidates. I know for a fact that the last of these has an Erdős number no greater than four. Robert Reich might also be a good candidate if Harvard Business Review articles and Al Franken's ill-fated LateLine show count. Calbaer

Popular scientists seem to be good candidates, judging from the last few additions. Some websites have claimed one Bruce Resnick to have a Bacon number of two and Erdos of 1, but he is neither in IMDb nor in http://www.oakland.edu/enp/Erdos1 . Has this been debunked or is there something missing here? Also, does anyone know whether Sagan played "himself" or another named part in the obscure film mentioned? Calbaer 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
And Cornell West, who appeared in the Matrix series, not (strictly) playing himself. He probably has a large, but finite Erdős number. Septentrionalis 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That would probably be a bit of a challenge. He rarely collaborates on peer-reviewed papers, and his few collaborators likely also collaborate little, due to the fields involved. They also don't seem as much into CVs as, say, mathematicians and engineers (judging from my few minutes spent searching). So it might take some work to find a finite Erdős number for Professor West. Or for, saying, actress Anna Deavere Smith. Interviews don't count as "collaborations" for the purpose of Erdős numbers. Although here's an interesting relaxation: One of the few coauthors of either Anna Deavere Smith or Cornell West was Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (who collaborated with both of them). Gates and Erdős simultaneously received honorary degrees from Emory University [9] (and thus might both have signed that infamous baseball). Anyone looking to find something more definitive should probably start here. Calbaer 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Computerworld has an article [10] about stars with science backgrounds, and notably omitted a reference to the ultra-geeky EB number. Oh well. They don't mention anyone who would have an obvious EB path that isn't mentioned here, so I guess that testifies to the completeneess of this page. --Kneague 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What about non-famous people with an low erdos-bacon number? I know someone with an erdos-bacon number of 5 and I am sure there are many more out there. (212.145.150.218 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

If (and only if) you can document this person's E-B number, I suggest you add it. However, I don't think it's necessarily very easy to just figure out who has a low E-B number, among "non-famous people," since they're less well-known and not as notable (if notable at all). Cheeser1 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm such a non-notable who has both Erdos (3) and Bacon (2) numbers, for sum of 5; should I add myself to the list? Both numbers are "legitimate" in sense of peer-reviewed papers and a screen credit. One-sentence description (under the "Scientists" section) might be something like, "Karl Schaffer is a dancer/choreographer who appeared as a Killer Klown in the 1988 cult classic "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" (name misspelled in the credits as 'Karl Shaeffer'), and is also a mathematician at De Anza College, with a Bacon number 2 and Erdos number 3, for sum of 5." Worth adding? KarlSchaffer 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you shouldn't be included, as 5 is fairly low and the list doesn't really have to do with notability. You should provide verifiable info for each step though: How does Bacon relate to Killer Klowns from Outer Space, and who did you work with to get your Erdos number? –Pomte 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Killer Klowns reference is via IMDb, Erdos number provided by Jerry Grossman of the Erdos Number Project at http://www.oakland.edu/enp/, since my school does not have access to MathSciNet: e.g. joint 2001 paper with Sin-Min Lee, who had a 2006 paper with Gary Chartrand, who had a 1989 paper with Erdos. Am not familiar with Wikipedia protocol, but my guess is this kind of verification should not clutter up the actual page, just be mentioned here, is that correct?KarlSchaffer 08:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
IMDb says, ""Karl Shaeffer was in Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988) with Danny Kovacs. Danny Kovacs was in Murder in the First (1995) with Kevin Bacon." Math Review numbers are: 2001 joint Sin-Min Lee paper: MR1853007 (2002f:05140), 2006 Chartrand/Lee paper: MR2234980 (2007c:05163), 1989 Chartrand/Erdos paper: MR1132893 (92i:05169).KarlSchaffer 04:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Any non-trivial claims really should be sourced, so I have added citations. The page is already cluttered up plenty by the other citations anyway. –Pomte 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also am a non-notable with a finite Bacon-Erdos number (6). Although uncredited, I was an extra with close-ups in Meet the Applegates (1991) with Robert Jayne, who appeared in Tremors (1990) with Kevin Bacon, giving me a Bacon number of 2. I am a graduate student in physics, and have an Erdos number of 4: K.L.M. Lewis to Susan Coppersmith in J. Appl. Phys. 99, 023509 (2006) and Susan Coppersmith has an Erdos Number of 3 according to MathScinet: Coppersmith to Eric Bach: MR2096377 (2005h:81087) to Jeffrey O. Shallit: MR0861378 (87k:11139) to Erdos: MR1116100 (92f:11016). I hesitate to add myself though, as being an uncredited extra isn't easily verifiable. - KristinLee 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Bacon joke

How difficult would it be to find someone with an Erdos number of 1 and get him in a film with kevin bacon? Blue Spider 12:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom. Please create a section head for new comments. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Encyclopedia-like?

Anyone want to work on making this more encyclopedia-looking and more sourced? One problem is that, although all sources can be completely verified, putting all the necessary verification information in the article would be ungainly. Yet there are few enough candidates that it's worthwhile to list them all. Calbaer 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined

Infinite may be clearer and more intuitive; what do the rest of you think? Septentrionalis 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Either's fine. I'm trying to be consistent with Erdős number and Bacon number, both of which seem to prefer "undefined." Calbaer 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not surprising. Somebody went through not too long ago, and changed all instances of "infinite" to "undefined". "Infinite" was used for quite some time, so I expect a lot of people were fine with that. --C S (Talk) 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Congrats to all on surviving the AfD. Most of the complaints about the article did not address its content, but rather the concept of its existence, so its survival fares well for both its future and its verifiability. Like most other pages on Wikipedia, not all facts are completely referenced, but I believe all are verifiable (i.e., easily checked given the information presented here), so I'll take off the "verify" tag soon, barring any comments to the contrary. Also, since no one has chimed in with suggestions to improving tone (or comments on flaws in tone), I'll remove the "tone" tag along with it. Calbaer 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification drudgery

I'm fairly sure that everything on the page can be "easily" verified, where "ease" is a function of brainpower, not time. Bacon numbers can be found with the information provided, combined with the Oracle of Bacon, whereas Erdős numbers can be found here for those with subscriptions (e.g., anyone at a participating academic institution). So it's just a matter of using these to find and get references and annotate accordingly. This should probably be done in the chart, lest the text get unwieldy. Any help would be appreciated, even if you only have time to do one or two. Calbaer 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this!

Isn't this WP:BJAODN material? Who are the nimrods who voted keep in the AfD? My gawd, it must be the end of the world! linas 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What standards of Bacon number?

If we accept that Hank Aaron has an Erdős number simply by signing a baseball together, what sort of specious standards can we use to calculate Bacon number? For example, I was a programmer on Sprung, which was written by Colleen McGuinness, who wrote on Miss Match which starred Alicia Silverstone, who has a Bacon number of 1, giving me a (very weak) Bacon number of 3. My Erdős number is definitely 5 (I coauthored a couple papers with Pfeiffer, who coauthored a paper with Hartley, who coauthored a paper with Gupta, who coauthored a paper with Frank Harary). Do I therefore have a (very weak) Erdős-Bacon number of 8? (I know, I know, video game credits probably don't count in the Bacon number. But I have a feeling that Erdős-Bacon numbers aren't quite as rare as the article makes it out to be.) 216.254.25.199 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is explicitly stated that this is somewhat of a joke ("facetious and fatuous"), but, seeing as how it is on the official Erdős number project page ([11]), it should nevertheless be stated. Such definitions in general, however, are a bit too fast and loose. It would, for example, give such entertainment academic perenials as Anna Deavere Smith, Cornell West, and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Erdős numbers of 1 or 2, which they aren't generally said to have. In order not to be OR, the article should have some minimum standards for "newly discovered" folks. At the bare, bare minimum, Erdős numbers should be determined by shared publications (if not necessarily academic or peer-reviewed publications) and Bacon numbers by common entertainment appearances (if not credited movie roles). I guess you could argue working together as being a common "entertainment appearance," but that would give me a Bacon number, since I worked at Xerox PARC at the same time as Geoff Nunberg, Bacon number 3. However, without a high-profile video (e.g., movie, documentary, television), I'd say to leave us out. (In fact, perhaps John Platt should be left out, since an awards show is rather tenuous, even if it might've been covered in visual media.) Calbaer 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, though I didn't just work at the same company as Colleen McGuinness, I actually worked on the same shipping entertainment product as her, albeit not a film project. 207.171.180.101 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (at work, so different IP address)
I understand, although Xerox PARC is not at large as its reputation would suggest. I'm still mulling over Dr. Platt — what do you think? Unlike Aaron's Erdos number, Platt's Bacon number seems self-assigned, so I'm tempted to leave him off (or put him in comments), lest others add other cases where no film role is shared. Stephen Hawking might be best omitted, too, until we can find a link through A Brief History of Time.... Calbaer 01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


I have a broader question about the definition - does television count? As defined, Bacon numbers (and thus Erdős-Bacon numbers) seem to require that one appear in a film with Bacon. I don't know exactly how that's defined, but film and television are often considered distinct (although made-for-TV movies might also count as films). Anyway, it seems to be defined by movies, and Bacon numbers seem to be calculated as such, but then we have Stephen Hawking obtaining a Bacon number by playing holographic poker with Data and voicing himself on The Simpsons. So does it count or not? I'm just trying to be precise, you know, as a mathematician would. --Cheeser1 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no canonical rule, just what people say. For example, if Aaron, Erdős, and Hawking were dropped from the list, that would be fine, although the first two should still be mentioned in the main text to avoid confusion. I guess that's why people like to call this OR — even though it isn't OR, as such, allowing flexibility in the definition makes it subjective. Again, that's not the same as being OR, but I see how others view it that way. Calbaer 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, really, every social science article ought to be deleted if flexible or poorly-defined definitions are cause for deletion. But they aren't, and they don't constitute OR. It's the nature of the beast. --Cheeser1 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Hawking in Star Trek: The Next Generation

I think it's incorrect to say that Stephen Hawking appeared as himself in ST:TNG; he appeared as a videogame-like holographic reconstruction of himself. There's a subtle difference here: as himself, he had to behave like himself, but as an AI, he had to act as the imaginary future AI designer thought the primitive Stephen Hawking would act - his acting was as demanding as those of the actors that represented virtual-Einstein and virtual-Newton. Albmont 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Appearances as "himself" are often just as demanding as "regular acting," and, while I do see the distinction, we need to rely upon reliable sources — not our own opinions — for what's in the article. This is important not only due to its being a policy, but more so because people like to level unreliable sources accusations against the article because they don't like it. IMDb lists the performance as "as himself," so that's what I went with. Calbaer 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masi Oka

Does anybody know if Masi Oka has any publications? If so, his EB number is probably pretty low - his Bacon number is 2. --Arcadian 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's highly doubtful. Percentage-wise, few people without graduate education have academic publications. Also, I can't find anything in Google Scholar or DBLP. Calbaer 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table Sort

Shouldn't the table be in ascending e-b number order, rather than alphabetical? Danthelawyer 22:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Danthelawyer

I like alphabetical since things are easier to find. Also, alphabetical order would imply that, say, Hank Aaron would have a "better" number than Danica McKellar, when Aaron's number is not meant to be taken as literally as the others. Finally, it would imply an actual ranking, when the list is (most likely) incomplete. Calbaer 02:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof

Does a person have to be credited to have a Bacon Number? "Proof" Starring Gwenyth Paltrow and Anthony Hopkins was filmed at the University of Chicago, and there is actually a scene in which Jake Gyllenhaal's character discusses Gwyneth Paltrow's character's proof with mathematicians and several actual Chicago math faculty appear as extras in this scene. I'm not sure which ones, but someone who knows the faculty there could take a look and then you'd have some people with low Bacon and low Erdos numbers...

LK

There'd need to be reliable sources. If they're not credited in the film, then that can be noted in the article. –Pomte 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werner Wendelin

This article must be Wikiepdia at is best :-)

On an unrelated note, shouldn't Werner Wendelin have a Bacon-Erdös number? The guy was a child-actor in at least one movie (French though) and now he is a mathematician.

That's Wendelin Werner. His Bacon number is 3, and I'm sure, with a bit of looking around, someone could easily find an upper bound to his Erdos number. I'm not as familiar with mathematics literature as I am with engineering, CS, and statistics, though, so I'll wait to see if someone else can do this before trying myself. Calbaer 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Len Adleman

I added this at the top in July; moving to the bottom on Aug 1 2007.

Does the person have to appear on screen to be considered having a Bacon Number, or only in the credits?

Len Adleman, a professor at University of Southern California (and the "A" in the "RSA cryptosystem") was credited as a technical advisor in Sneakers. Stephen Tobolowsky had a role in both Sneakers and Bacon's movie Murder in the First (1995), giving Adleman a Bacon Number of 2.

Len has an Edros number of 2 (via either ODLYZKO, ANDREW MICHAEL or POMERANCE, CARL BERNARD).

This gives him a Bacon-Erdos number of 4.

To have a Bacon number, a person must have an acting role (on screen or voice) in a film, although it does not have to be credited. Directing, producing, etc. do not count. Ward3001 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics papers versus academic papers

Erdos numbers often include papers other than mathematics papers, as implicitly [12] and explicitly [13] assumed by the unofficial site for Erdos numbers. Also, in today's world, what qualifies as a "mathematics paper" versus anything else is extremely subjective. Calbaer 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • For Erdos & Bacon, the connections all serve the same categorical role as Erdos or Bacon (research writer or actor). Specifying Math-writer would be as arbitrary as specifying separate Graph-Theory-Erdos, Drama-Bacon, or Comedy-Bacon numbers. Also, I like that the oakland.edu site excludes intro level textbooks and the like. Erdos numbers reflect creative collaboration. Now, if someone really wanted to be a stickler, they could invoke inclusion in the American Mathematical Society's search engine, or the 1969 paper titled "And what is your Erdos Number?" which explicitly stated "mathematicians." The former doesn't make sense because there are plenty of dubiously mathematical papers in the search engine. The latter doesn't make much sense because there's no reason to believe that the author deliberately excluded non-Mathematician collaborators. The '69 article is somewhat facetious, and I doubt the author had any reason to believe non-mathematicians would even find this topic interesting.. Plus, I think it would go against the spirit of collaboration to exclude non-mathematicians, or to tell other scientists to find their field's own "Erdos." Our opinions aside, the Erdős_number page very heavily pushes the "math" only route. Should that be changed to reflect the oakland site's usage?--Kneague 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for chart

If you do a google search for Erdos-Bacon, there seem to be a few other people with verifiable claims to finite Erdos-Bacon numbers. Should these people be added to the list, or should we only keep (1) people who already have wikipedia pages (i.e., notables), (2) people who've been professional actors and academics, and (3) extras who don't fulfill the previous criteria but have an Erdos-Bacon below some arbitrary threshhold that we can agree on. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is Encyclopedic, but not an exhaustive repository of information, and charts containing info not in the text don't make for the most integrated pages. --Kneague 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that anyone notable enough to have their own articles merit inclusion. Your criterion (2) seems too vague to me (that might encompass almost everyone with a finite E-B number). The notability for inclusion here (but nowhere else) should be based on how notable someone in this context - how low an E-B number is notable? I'm not sure. We could invent an arbitrary cutoff, or even look at how this crazy gigantic graph is shaped and draw some conclusions (not that I have the time or means to do so). Since virtually everyone in Hollywood is connected to Bacon by 6 steps, and virtually everyone in math is about the same for Erdős, it seems to me like our cutoff should be less than 12. Maybe 8 or 9. But that's pretty arbitrary. Plus I'd also find it highly interesting if there were someone with, say, an E-B number of 100. In such a well-connected network, a very high E-B number is probably more remarkable than a low one (although it wouldn't say much about one's career). --Cheeser1 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about it further, and reflection my comments in the section I started below, I believe that there's a good reason why it seems so arbitrary to try to figure out who goes on the list and who doesn't: that's not our decision to make. If someone has been mentioned in a reliable source as having a finite E-B number, they are in. If someone has not, they are out. My comments below explain that in further detail, but basically, it's not our job to research who has finite E-B numbers, even if our sources are all academic articles and/or IMDB. --Cheeser1 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion about reputable sources makes a lot of sense, and will keep the article from becoming to watered down. I think we can all agree that notables (e.g., people already with a wikipedia page) belong on this list whether or not they were extras. But I do think professional actors should be on here, whether or not a reliable source has written an article about it. My criteria two was actually very specific-- professional entertainers have agents, go to auditions, etc. --Kneague 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There are so few persons with verified E-B numbers, why not just have all persons with verifiable E-B numbers? There are plenty of persons not notable enough to warrant their own peoples that area nonetheless mentioned in Wikipedia. Also, people with unquestionable E-B numbers, like Richard Feynman (assuming we don't insist that physics isn't mathematical enough), shouldn't need some random article-writer's blessing to be listed. If the list does get too long — which I don't think has been suggested — we can take out questionable cases (and, of course, uncited cases). That's admittedly subjective, but most Wikipedia decisions ultimately are; it doesn't make them original research.
By the way, the paragraph about the average Bacon number and Erdos number is fairly irrelevant here, at least if not put in proper contexts, that is, that these are the average (mean, median, ??) numbers for actors with credited parts in films in IMDb with finite numbers. As it stands now, the paragraph is imprecise, misleading, and beside the point. The range of E-B numbers can be judged by the list itself! Calbaer 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely that the paragraph about average Bacon & Erdos numbers is misleading. I think it should be deleted, but I will wait a while for other opinions before deleting. Ward3001 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There are so few persons with verified E-B numbers, why not just have all persons with verifiable E-B numbers? This is the essence of what I'm saying (in the section below, where I brought it up). It's not up to us to go find new people with E-B numbers or to scour the internet looking for connections. That clearly constitutes research, and since one of us is doing it, it's original research - trivial as it may seem. People with verified E-B numbers, I presume, means people we already know about (mentioned in media, Portman for example). But your use of verifiable here does not correspond with your use of "verified" - here you mean something that we can research and verify as opposed to something we can find already stated in a reliable source. The latter is how we use the term verified. The fact that our original research can "verify" someone's E-B number does not make it okay with WP:V. --Cheeser1 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original research concerns

I am concerned about some of what's going on in this article. I support the inclusion of this article, and most of what's in it. However, to me I think we're pushing the envelope on WP:SYN. We've even had a blatant WP:COI problem when someone came in and told us his own Erdős-Bacon number (although that one's still pending verification). But my main concern is WP:SYN. Collectively, we've got access to the title/author information for millions of articles and films, either from our previous knowledge or through other means (e.g. online searches). But combing through that information and finding people with finite Erdős-Bacon numbers seems to be a clear violation of WP:SYN. It's not up to us to find information, synthesize it into claims, and present those claims on Wikipedia, even if it's completely unobjectionable (which is of course, rarely the case, although here it might be). --Cheeser1 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the WP:SYN page, and I think you're mischaracterizing it. It states that Original Research "applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." Looking for undiscovered EB numbers is certainly synthesis, but I fail to see what position it is advancing that is not already public knowledge. For example, there are plenty of former actors on IMDB who's bios state that they are now academics. As that information is publicly available and "published," I don't see how looking their names up in the AMS database, or an equivalent, is advancing a position of any sort. --Kneague 08:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do see your point, but I'm not sure if "position" is as strict a term as you're taking it to be ("Bob Smith has an E-B number of 7" is a "position" one might say). And I would point to, for example, the user who came to this talk page and insisted that he had an E-B number of 5 or so. It didn't turn out to be true, as far as I could tell, despite this person most definitely having an Erdős number. This is certainly not an egregious violation of WP:SYN or any other part of WP:OR, I am just wondering if we aren't getting side-tracked from the point of Wikipedia, which is not for us to go looking for new claims to make, but rather, to document those that have been made. --Cheeser1 13:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem with EB numbers, apart from their general silliness, is that there's no authority to judge whether a person is who we think they are. There were even cases of mistaken identity in calculating Erdos's Bacon-Erdos number. Another thing we should be careful of is that new entries require at least five different references on average. It's somewhat telling when a page's references become longer than the content. One thing I am concerned about is that this page is cited all over the web for listing "the only people with defined EB numbers." I could name at least five off the top of my head, and there are likely several hundred others using the weak criteria used on that chart -- professors are often in documentaries or tv shows as themselves, and there are plenty of academics who have been used as extra's at films made at schools. Any suggestions on how we can give the list some perspective? --Kneague 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I think that's part of the problem - inclusion is, at this point, arbitrary, because this is WP:SYN material (at least in a borderline or technical sense). The only well-defined rule I can come up with is basically in line with WP:V - unless some primary source has said "Person X is noted for their Erdős-Bacon number of Y," I don't know that we can include it. I realize this is inhibiting, and fairly strict, but it's the most concrete, well-defined rule I can come up with (and it does cut the WP:SYN problems out of the picture). --Cheeser1 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert De Niro

I added Robert De Niro to the list of people with an Erdos-Bacon number. I was not sure how to get his name more centerd in his space. I also wonderd is being in a movie with Kevin Bacon a number one or a number two?

Ronin13 6:44 Pacific time am 07/11/07

He has a Bacon number of 1, however, what you added does not establish that he has an Erdős number. DeNiro must have published an academic paper to have an Erdős number. The path from him to Erdős needs to be entirely academic, not just a bunch of movies up to some actor with an Erdős number. --Cheeser1 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I miss some introductory remarks on the usage and significance. What is the EBN supposed to express?

I realize there was a AfD in 2006, and I don't mind the original research, nor do I question relevance or care about any individuals EBN or that it is largely entertainment, but can somebody please explain, why two exisiting numbers are added here. Is the addition trying to achieve something? Apparently, Ben Rosenbaum, sees some goal [14]:

My proposal was to find someone who had both an Erdös number and a Kevin Bacon number, and use them to produce a conversion function. In one glorious stroke, a thousand lifelong dreams could thus be fulfilled -- everyone in Hollywood could have an Erdös number, and everyone at MIT could have a Kevin Bacon number. As it turns out, the preliminary work has already been done. Brian Greene, for instance, has an Erdös number of 3, and a Bacon number of 2. Thus, my proposed conversion function (allowing edges in the unified Bacon-Erdös graph to represent two people either appearing together in a movie or coauthoring a paper) is as follows: Finding: an actor with a Bacon number of N has, at most, a Baconized Erdös number of N+5. Similarly, an academic with an Erdös number of M has, at most, an Erdösinated Bacon number of M + 5.

I don't know what a conversion function is. Maybe someone could explain. Simon Singh makes a clear statement, that this is a game [15]. I think it would help the article, if it were stated clearly that this is a game (and the goal is apparently to see who has the lowest EBN). If there is more to it (conversion function?) maybe that could be added too. It would probably help the unfamiliar reader. Now (Feb 08) the article very quickly turns to "how EBN is calculated?", where the idea is from and who has which EBN before properly explaining how it's actually used.--83.76.186.21 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will Smith

I removed Will Smith from the table, the link to the name points to the famous actor, the reference at the Bacon number points to a same-named professor in England. Will Smith (actor) has a Bacon number, and Will Smith (prof) has an Erdős number, but this can't be combined to give "Will Smith" (fictitious person) an Erdős-Bacon number. Unless one can demonstrate the Will Smith for the Bacon number is meant to be the prof (in which case, a reference footnote should be added and the name link should go somewhere else), or that Will Smith the actor has an Erdős number. --Canuckguy (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Patterson

Gene Patterson is listed as Erdős' entrance to a Bacon path, but it's the wrong Gene according to the Erdős' Number Project, " In fact, according to the Oracle of Bacon site, Paul Erdös himself has an official Bacon number of 4, by virtue of the N is a Number (a documentary about him), and lots of other mathematicians have finite Bacon number through this film. However, we have recently discovered that this is bogus, because the link, named Gene Patterson, is not the same person in N is a Number as in the film Box of Moonlight, where the link supposedly lies. Thus it remains an open question as to what Paul Erdös’s Bacon number is." --Kneague (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"we have recently discovered that this is bogus, because the link, named Gene Patterson, is not the same person in N is a Number": Who is "we"? Can you cite a reliable source for this information? If so, we may have something to discuss. If not, case closed. Ward3001 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the IMDB, the Gene Patterson in both productions is the same person. If there is good evidence that the IMDB is wrong here, I'd like to know about it. They do distinguish between three different "Gene Patterson"s already. -- Avenue (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the burden of proof is to demonstrate that IMDB is right. It's listing a stuntman and an expert/friend of Paul Erdos as the same person, which sounds suspicious to me. Has anyone actually seen N is a Number? I encourage someone to e-mail the Erdős' Number Project, which is the most reliable source on the topic of Erdős' Numbers, and the source of my above quote. --Kneague (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the burden on proof is on anyone who wants to challenge information in the article that is already sourced. Also, you have not explained who "we" is in your statement that "''we have recently discovered that this is bogus", nor explained your evidence that it is bogus. And Kneague, you can email the Erdős' Number Project if you wish. Ward3001 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"We" refers to the people at the the Erdős' Number Project, where I obtained the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneague (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to point out that IMDB is often user-edited, and hardly a reliable source of whether two obscure actors are the same person. Plus, the Gene Patterson page gives absolutely no specific info indicating they are the same person or that anything but a bot modified the page. Second, I e-mailed Jerry Grossman from the Erdős' Number Project. He has e-mail confirmation from actor Gene Patterson that he was not in N is a Number. He also has e-mail confirmation from the filmmaker of N is a Number that Gene was a southern tourist who, along with his daughter Elise, was randomly approached by Erdős in Muir Woods. --Kneague (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Cast lists on IMDb are not user-edited. Those are determined by IMDb staff, sometimes based on suggestions from users. I notified them of an error in the cast list of a film, but it did not get changed until they confirmed it with another source. Reviews and discussion boards are not screened by IMDb staff, but a lot of other information is screened. That doesn't always mean they are 100% correct, of course. Unfortunately personal communications such as yours with Grossman and Grossman's with the filmmaker are not reliable sources. But the fact that it's on their website is noteworthy. I think the best approach would be to cite the Erdős' Number Project website and make a statement in the article that the two sources conflict. Then contact IMDb and suggest that they check it out. Later if IMDb changes it, then you can state it more definitively here. Ward3001 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've updated our lead section to cover the various views, as far as we have verified sources. -- Avenue (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've notified IMDB. Hopefully they can provide more reliable evidence than the testaments of George Csicsery, the director of N is a Number, and Gene Patterson himself. --Kneague (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erdős has Bacon number less than or equal to 5

Erdős appeared in "N is a Number"[16] with Fan Chung Graham. Fan Chung Graham is the same person as Fan Chung (I don't have a reference for this, but I know it firsthand), who appeared in "The Math Life"[17] with Freeman Dyson. Freeman Dyson has Bacon number 3, by citations currently in the Erdős-Bacon number article. BjornPoonen (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Pausch

Randy Pausch has a Bacon number of 2 [18] [19] thanks to John Cho. MathSciNet can't seem to find an Erdős number, but someone familiar with his field (and folks with lots of co-authorships and/or crossovers) might be able to tie him to Erdős, e.g., through someone in machine learning who might bridge AI (connected through VR) with statistics. Any ideas? Calbaer (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erdős and Bacon's joint paper and Erdős' EBN

The (admittedly very amusing) statement concerning the "heretofore-unpublished Bacon-Erdős collaboration" is not correct, is it? It wouldn't lower Erdős' Bacon-Number, so only Bacon's Erdős-Bacon-number would be 1. Or? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.60.109 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is partly correct; perhaps fully correct if "collaboration" could mean appearance together in a film. If there were an Erdős-Bacon publication collaboration, then Bacon would have a Bacon number of zero and an Erdos number of 1, yielding an Erdős-Bacon of 1. If Erdős appeared in a film with Bacon, then he would have an Erdős number of zero and a Bacon number of 1, yielding an Erdős-Bacon number of 1. Ward3001 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It is still not correct, even if "collaboration" could mean appearance together in a film. If that were the case, Erdős would indeed have an Erdős-Bacon number of 1, but Bacon would still not have any publications with Erdős, and thus could not have an Erdős-Bacon number of 1. The only way for both Erdős and Bacon to have Erdős-Bacon numbers of 1 would be for some film collaboration to be revealed (either a secret film from the past, or using stock Erdős footage in a Bacon movie) and a joint publication to be revealed (Erdős needs the film to reduce his Bacon number to 1, and Bacon needs the publication to reduce his Erdős number to 1). I'm going to edit the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.236.216 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh ... that's what I said. If "collaboration" means they publish together and are in a film together, they each have an Erdős-Bacon number of 1, making the version before your edit fully correct. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that version was at best misleading. "a [one] heretofore-unpublished Bacon-Erdős collaboration" could not lower Erdős' Bacon number and Bacon's Erdős number at the same time. Anyway, the "new film scenario" is taken care of by the line just above the line in question, and I think by the words "unpublished" and "collaboration" was originally ment an academic paper. But this is one of the goofiest sentences in one of the goofiest articles on wikipedia, so I don't think it's worth the discussion. I rewrote it to something I think everyone can agree on.129.11.120.94 (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)