Talk:List of people by Erdős number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: B Class Low Priority Field unassessed.
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.

Thanks Mikkalai and Ntsimp. Pete St.John (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] New names

I'm a little uncomfortable about new names added to the list, which don't have articles. Since the Canfield contributor was anonymous, I just checked, easily found this geneology item. If I wanted to add someone I'd at least make a stub with a link to their academic home page or whatever, right? Pete St.John (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked him up too, after seeing that edit. I think we should only be adding redlinks of people who are clearly notable for something other than having a low Erdős number, but I also think Canfield qualifies, e.g. for editing EJC. Canfield's home page. A redlink here should be a hint to anyone looking for a page to create, but I don't think we need to actually create articles for all the redlinks until we're ready to take the time to do so properly for each one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this list was based on the defunct categories, obviously it started with just people who already have articles. I didn't start adding redlinks until others did. I added two redlinks in copying people from the ENP list of prizewinners with Erdős number 3. I've been keeping a list of people with Erdős numbers 1 and 2 for whom I wanted to create articles. I finally copied the most important of those onto this list. If someone else makes articles for these before I get to them, then so much the better. But I certainly agree with David that they should be notable. Ntsimp (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No problems. I'll just say that if I were anonymous, when adding an item I'd create a stub with at least a link (mathscinet, the geneology project, a departmental page...) so we would know who was meant. And save us from checking :-) but sure, righteous contributors such as yourselves are welcome to paste whole lists wholesale, it's damage control. Pete St.John (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Er. If you were anonymous, you wouldn't be able to create a stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. Then I guess I'd put the link in the talk page (viz, here). Pete St.John (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference

Pomte is right; the link to Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Erdős number is an inappropriate self-reference. "Any link in an article in the main namespace that links to one in the Wikipedia namespace" is one of the first examples given in WP:ASR. Ntsimp (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. Ntsimp (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Higher numbers and verifiability

When I created this list I included only Erdős numbers 0–2, since they're what I mostly cared about and can be immediately verified from the ENP lists. After an anonymous editor created the #3 section, I added some people listed on the ENP site as having Erdős number 3. Since then, a number of others have been added, some by me, without an obvious way to verify them. I'm not really sure what to do about that. There are still plenty of articles that were included in the old categories for numbers 3–6 and that have not been added to this list—but again, what about citing sources? Does a list such as this, with little actual article prose, need citations? If so, how shall we go about it? And how high should the numbers on the list go? Ntsimp (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That would have been an advantage of the category (as opposed to the list); the notability is defined as usual for the article. Anyway for the list I'd hope for new addtions to include citations. If the subject has an article, I wouldn't care how high the number is, and if not, then I think about 3 is the cutoff for notability in se? Pretty subjective, but "2" just means "coauthors of Erdos", so at least 3 for the networking quality of erdos numbers to be relevant. Also Carlitz is only 3; and that actually has some historical interest since they were contemporaries in related fields and both reputed for their proliferation. Pete St.John (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I always added the path I have in mind to justify the upper bound on the Erdos number in he edit summary, as I did when adding an article to the category (before they were deleted).Billlion (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Pete St.John (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some errors in the extraction, or else there are errors at the linked document http://www.oakland.edu/enp/Erdos1. For example, that list shows Ernst P Specker as having index 1, but he does not appear on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.91.99 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. There are many thousands of people with Erdős numbers 1–3 whose names are not on this list. It's not intended to be exhaustive, only to include those who either already do or (in a few cases) eventually should have their own Wikipedia articles. However, I think Specker probably does belong on the list. Ntsimp (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the numbers can be verified by those with access to MathSciNet via its Collaboration Distance search (under the Author search), for which distance to Erdős is the default search. --Delirium (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this doesn't require any special access; it's a public web site. However, it counts many things as joint publications, such as joint editorships or even joint obituaries! There are also those whose shortest legitimate path to Erdős passes through a paper not found in that particular database. So, it's certainly a great resource, and referenced at the top of the article. But it's insufficient. Ntsimp (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • Istvan Beck. I confirmed this as far as Planet Math.
  • Bruss seems to be [1]. 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)

[edit] comment clarification?

What does the comment "Noted Erdos number section will be deleted from the discussion page. It is a done case - No more conversations on this" from R Naik? is this a language issue or am I missing something? Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the discussion now on the talk archive page. As Naik said in that edit summary, discussion was finished, but deletion would have been the wrong way of closing it off. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
ah thanks, that's clear, I had misconstrued the wording. Pete St.John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sine it is said not to edit archives, here I' fixing it.

It read there as " In a corporate word, webistes are not offered to Employees. I'm also in academia, but it is my choice if I want to use the space given to me. RNaik100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnaik100 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"

It should be "In a corporate world, webistes are not offered to employees. I'm also in academia, but it is my choice if I want to use the webspace given to me there. RNaik100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnaik100 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

Changed RNaik100 to Raj 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)