Talk:Erdős number

2612:. To find an Erdős number for someone (like Collins), that person needs to have been listed as the co-author on a published scientific paper with someone else that has an Erdős number. If that happens and the resulting Erdős number is at most three, then we can list him. Nothing more and nothing less will work. So all the effort to include content here is pointless. Certainly an Erdős number of 1 is out of the question; that could only happen for a paper co-authored by Erdős himself, and he's long dead. Something larger is not impossible in principle, but it would involve Collins (not someone else in his name) doing actual mathematical research with a published mathematician, and then getting it published, something that seems highly unlikely to happen within the timeframe of this scavenger hunt. "Honorary coauthorship" (adding someone as an author who had no connection to the work described in a paper) is considered quite unethical so I would not encourage trying to accomplish that. — 900:, that instead we took the "you either have one or not" position. Then how could we tidily express the conditions under which people would have them? "You have an Erdős number if... umm... you are he, or a co-author, or a co-author of a co-author... umm... well, you have one provided... umm, provided you're one of the people who has one." Yes, of course one could define it by recourse to graph theoretic jargon (e.g., "You have one if you and Erdős are in the same component of that graph on the human species in which adjacency corresponds to having co-authored in the scientific literature") or to recursion (e.g., "Erdős does, as does every non-Erdős who's a co-author with anybody who does"), but yuck and yuck. How much simpler to say " 1172:

from pages which is a shame as people have put in the effort to calculate (at least an upper bound for) them. When I added the Erdos number to a biography I placed an example of a sequence of authors giving taht number as a comment (sometimes in the text as a comment as wel as edit summary). This leads me to propose that for Mathematicians at least with Edos number up to 4 we make a template that will give an upper bound on the Erdos number with an example of a chai of the right length (surnames of authors will do) in small print. This way if some other mechanism becomes appropriate for forming lists or doing searches it can just be added to the template. How does taht sound?

2242:

the USSR, thus in which sense the people mentioned could be considered as `accomplices' is not clear at all. The content of Simkin's article is partly inaccurate: he claims that "Berezovsky defenders argue that he is an honest mathematician with an Erdős number of 4". Who are these mysterious defenders (or opponents)? These are no more that Simkin's ill fantasy, as long as he is not able to present concrete "defenders that argue..." the claim is unsourced. Above that, the number introduced by Simkin has no scientific significance. Would you think Erdős were happy to see references to such dubious publications?

84: 2360:. Links provided show an automated system that calculates Snyatkovsky number for almost 80 thousand players with statistics that allow anyone to check the small world phenomenon and discover the distribution of this number between its reached bounds (as I see, other variations are calculated individually and little statistics exist, with suggestions like 'every mathematician should have Erdős number less than 10' or what). I guess it's like a 'serious investigation' in terms of a humorous concept. 74: 53: 3968:

discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion..." I have addressed all valid concerns, as explained in my comment. If you still object, you may start a second discussion about any remaining concerns you still have. Since I believe that I still have one revert left in this 24 hour period, I have decided to use it. Please do not revert the article back. If you have existing concerns about this compromise, you may state them here and seek a second consensus. --

4037:: This is a valid concern. I have addressed it completely by making the link indirect. 2) The belief that the Erdos number is not a scientometric index. I do not believe that this concern is valid. While it may seem odd, the sources clearly state that the Erdos number is a that it is scientometric index, and if you disagree you will have to cite a source to challenge it. Only valid concerns must be addressed in consensus. 3) Knowledge's 413:"There is an edge between vertices u and v if u and v have published at least one mathematics article together. (There is no reason to restrict this to the field of mathematics, of course.)" This is further clarified: "Our criterion for inclusion of an edge between vertices u and v is some research collaboration between them resulting in a published work. Any number of additional co-authors is permitted. " Also see: 1866:. The only grounds I could see for inclusion would be on the grounds of notability. If it's not notable, I'm not sure on what grounds we should be listing every mention of the erdos number (or mentioning in Knowledge every single concept that is ever covered by any webcomic)? (And third party references should really still be be provided, not for notability, but for Verifiability and to avoid Original Research.) 4299:

recreational. Many sources find that the Erdos number is a scientometric index, and I have cited only one. If you cannot refute it in accordance with wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines, it stands. Additionally, this article is in no danger of overlinking. Please express only valid concerns. I have already stated that I do not believe this link to be a submarine link: I will paste that text here.

2545:

social sciences. By way of getting tens of thousands of people willfully perform crazy tasks in this international scavenger hunt, he has, perhaps indirectly, influenced people's behavior. Many of the tasks involve performing random acts of kindness (RAOK), and by way of creating international teams, foster teambuilding skills and greater understanding of cultural differences and similarities.

2892:(2) The Erdos number of some mathematician X in the far future cannot be smaller than (t-T+1)a where t is the time of the first publication of X, T the time of the last Erdos publication, and a is the largest possible publishing time of any mathematician (the difference between the time of the first and the last publication) (or some similar formula, I have not checked exactly full details). 1803:- and since that individual specific strip probably gets nothing in the way of third party references, it's not notable). Perhaps if there was an entire film built around the concept of an Erdos number, where the film in itself was notable with its own specific article, that might be worth mentioning here. But if there was just a passing mention in a film, we probably shouldn't mention it. 2687:. (I didn't converse with either, but that doesn't affect the Number.) Erdős Couch Numbers have been considered too exclusive to reveal on public websites, especially since riffraff might have an incentive to plop down beside one on a couch merely to obtain a better (lower) Number. But, being known for your low Erdős Couch Number could help a shy male pick up chicks (something my 22: 162: 1188:

vertex is not connected to the Erdos component, that fact just as interesting, and worthy of mention in an infobox. I'm not realy sure that a chain is really necessary, except in cases where the standard automated tools at MathSciNet don't provide one, or where the standard tools give a number higher than the actual verifiable bound. --

1907:

that would certainly be notable enough to be mentioned in this article in some form. However, if then became a meme-of-the-day that was mentioned many times in many places, they wouldn't need to all be listed. At that point it would require some thought and effort to figure out how to handle the cultural references in the article. -

4072:. A discussion in which there is a lone advocate for a position that has been opposed by 7 other people can be fairly said to have reached a conclusion. The fact that you disagree with this conclusion is mildly unfortunate, but it does not give you grounds for ignoring it, and especially not for conducting an edit-war to ignore it. 4725:

did this, and was astonished to find that my Erdős number is 5. Details of collaborations were listed, so it is possible to check - I didn't bother, and will just claim this number. However, when I repeated the search a couple of times I got different responses, without an Erdős number. Best wishes and happy hunting,

1491:

for a relatively obscure topic like this one if they show that it is far less obscure than might be assumed. The difficulty is keeping them from turning into tedious lists of "this was mentioned in the Simpsons!" I think in this case the xkcd mention *would* be relevant, because that strip has bled into mainstream. -

3749:-- slap "erdos" into their search bar to find more). So I would support restoring it to that section. I don't think the proposed change to the lead is good, though -- calling the Erdős number a scientometric index is kind of right but also very misleading, and I agree with XOR'easter about the jargon issue. -- 2075:], as was suggested in an earlier Edit summary? It's an excellent discussion of why "lookit, lookit: this topic was mentioned in an XKCD cartoon!" is rarely a useful addition. (By the way, I count myself among XKCD's many fans and read it regularly; this is not a knock on that invariably clever strip.) - 4683:

You are correct about the need to avoid idioms, especially since so many non-English-native-speakers use the English wikipedia. But I think "lived out of a suitcase" is sufficiently self-evident that it can stay, although that's an opinion of course. I don't think it needs to be replaced by something

3873:

placed an indirect link in the lede which accommodates all concerns. Per wikipeida's BRD guidelines "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can

3860:

There still seems to be disagreement about whether or not the Erdos number is a scientometric index. As far as I can tell, the literature does unanimously refer to it as a scientometric index, and therefor it is one. If anyone has a counterexample, please post it here. Therefore, the issue at hand is

3361:

The source's title is most certainly not"Download limit exceeded." Knowledge's citation formatted has made an error. If you click the link, you will be able to download a paper which fits the definition of a reliable source based on reliable sourcing guidelines. This source describes the Erdos number

1073:

The Erdos Project lists Erdos as having 511 co-authors (i.e. people with a number of 1) but this article only lists 509. I don't know anything about this, but can somebody who does either explain that or fix it (would assume we'd need to fix the number of 2s,3s, but maybe thats in the project website

836:

This article keeps using the term 'finite' to describe Erdős numbers. I think this is a bit ridiculous, even more so to say that if a person doesn't have a chain of co-authors linking them to Erdős that their Erdős number is infinite! What is the point in such language when it doesn't serve to convey

3735:

I had seen Wikiman2718's edit on my watchlist before David Eppstein reverted. It made my eyebrows go up a bit, but after poking around a bit I decided it was a good addition to the See Also section. In particular, while the Erdős number started as an in-joke, it's definitely taken on a life of its

2544:

I too would like to submit Misha Collins as an Erdos connection. Actually, the Misha Collins GISHWHES (Greatest International Scavenger Hunt the World Has Ever Seen) is NOT an internet prank (as another author indicated above). Instead, it is a very timely social experiment in both social media and

2414:

And since when Google is considered notable source? Just because you can find something in search engine doesn't mean it should have wikipedia entry. Also, it's about Notability, not Reliability. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". I for one fail to see how inside joke of

1906:

XKCD probably isn't mainstream enough to perform that job, but a widely printed newspaper comic strip would be a different matter (which is why I tossed out "Zits" as an example). If Erdos Number had reached enough cultural critical mass to be mentioned in Zits (which will never happen, by the way),

1341:

page drops no hint for the outsider that this number is not meant to be taken too seriously. I never met the man, but I doubt Paul Erdős would have encouraged it to be considered a true measure of collaboration even though he himself was a fine example of someone who spent his life in collaboration.

1115:

Being the editor who nominated these categories for deletion in this third instance, I'd like to comment that I personally do appreciate the pedagogy argument. I just thought that Knowledge's present category scheme is unsuitable for this activity. A lot of useful connections could be categorized if

1027:

Erdos did a lot of work in Graph Theory generally; the Erdos-Spencer Probailistic Method is conspicuous but not particularly pertinent to Erdos Numbers. Erdos coauthored with a huge number of people (500 odd). If you consider the graph G with E set defined by (x,y) in E when x coauthors with y, then

4724:

A frivolous comment: playing around, I found an easy way to check your (or anyone's) Erdős number: using something which invokes a large language model chatbot, such as Google search, search for "erdos number" "homer simpson", where "homer simpson" is the name of someone you have coauthored with. I

2607:

These comments misunderstand the nature of Erdős numbers and of this page. An Erdős number is not created nor in any way officially recognized by being listed here at Knowledge. Rather, what we list here are Erdős numbers that are already recognized, either by the Erdős number project or by data in

2241:

It is more than elaborate, it is an unethical and bad joke. Apparently, Simkin aimed to attract attention to his person by means not accepted among scientists. His article is offending and misleading. The last of 16 publications on MathSciNet Simkin refers to is dated 1989, even before the fall of

1490:

As currently existing (one item about Hank Aaron and a trivial bit about one unversity math department), yes it should go. But in general, not necessarily - "popular culture" subsections are useful if they cast light on whether a concept has percolated through society. They are particularly useful

547:

While I think I agree with you re the conclusion, your arguments are not adequate. A maths paper may be encyclopedic, and it may be a survey paper containing only things that have already been thought. Indeed, were Erdos to have edited a wikipedia article with someone as a form of maths scholarship

466:

There seem to be some reasons for limiting the connections to maths papers, but there don't seem to be any sources or citations for some authority using those reasons to reach that conclusion. I.e., there is nothing verifiable saying an Erdos number is based only on maths articles. I don't think we

333:

There seems to be some disagreement about the scope and applicability of Erdos numbers. I removed the explicit references to "mathematicians" in the definition, then someone restored it, and now we're back to the more generic "authors". I'd just like to point out that many physicists and computer

3710:

1) The Erdos number provides us with sociological data regarding the sciences. I know that it is typical for scientomentric indexes to provide us data about research impact and such, but there is no reason that it has to work for that purpose. One might argue that this kind of sociological data is

2885:

property of the graph. Suppose with a bit of exaggeration that there are presently hundreds of "isles" of mathematicians working in different fields, with no collaboration connecting the isles (this is a conceivable situation, though not the actual one). The isles might continue to be isolated for

2767:

The argument for including Posner is that he's a staple of legal scholarship. This means, of course, that lots of other legal folks will have finite Erdos numbers (including, I strongly suspect, almost all the US Supreme Court Justices, and at least some of the US presidents who were academics at

2479:

Ask any Hungarian mathematician and you will get the same answer: Erdős. There is really no question about it, even if you can find sources spelling it differently. The URL with this character is perfectly legal. Older browsers may fail to handle it properly, but relatively recent versions of all

2179:

The repository arxiv.org is the collection of preprints, mostly of good quality but also some junk. This work is not refereed as in peer-reviewed journals. Everybody can post there a paper on `Simkin number' for example. Simkin's paper is better suitable as a joke for university party, rather than

2089:

I read it and noticed that it pertains to the "in popular culture sections". A weblink may just illustrate the subject, the requirements for adding sth to the "in popular culture sections" should be higher, namely, that the specific cartoon has an impact for the subject / popular culture. But I do

1985:

Article doesn't clarify following case: X and Y collaborate on paper, but don't have their Erdős numbers. Later on, X collaborates with Z and gets Erdős number of n. Does Y get n+1 or do they still have infinity? Can one's Erdős number decrease in time without them writing any papers, as people on

1586:

Hmm.. ok, so in this specific case, it's my opinion that the work should not be mentioned the article. If, for some reason, it turns into a wide-spread meme beyond the regular cult-of-XKCD types (ie. it (and by 'it', i mean this specific doodle) gets mentioned in a popular main stream media - like

1402:

Given that von Neumann, Stanislaw Ulam, and Robert D. Richtmyer wrote the paper which defined the now commonplace method known by the name Monte Carlo (Statistical methods in neutron diffusion , Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LAMS–551, 1947), should not von Neumann be listed with an Erdös

850:

I agree with you about the "positive". As for "infinite", the problem is that more than one definition of "Erdős number" is going around and both definitions are mixed up in the article. In one version, some people have an Erdős number and some don't. In the other version, everyone has an Erdős

4320:

is that you should not trick the reader by linking to one page when they expect another. The guidelines state: "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." I think we have agreed by now the sources indicate

4132:

3967:

how BRD works. According to this nice quote that I have extracted for you: "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the

1211:

increasing; changing it to "must tend to increase..." would be an improvement. But a little simple logic (which this is) in common language should be OK for explaining what's going on, to laymen. In an article about prime numbers I would show why 3 is prime, not cite a specific reference for that

1171:

It may be taht there is a problem with using the category system for this. If there is I must admit that I do not understand what the problem is. It seems to me for example much better to use categories than lists due to the problem of maintenance. At the moment the Edos numbers are being deleted

1100:

The category for Erdos Numbers, e.g. "Carliz (category persons with Erdos Number 2)" has been deleted. There have been several debates about this, but the most recent one led to deletion. It's actually a very interesting social phenomenon; I invite mathematicians with any concern for pedagogy and

1003:

good. Low numbers are prestigious; 1 means you coauthored with the Great Man himself, 2 means you coauthored with someone 1, and so on. The lower your number, the closer you are (in this sense) to a group of very productive and regarded mathematicians. Of course you might also be close to them in

699:

From the article: "...the average is less than 5, and almost everyone with a finite Erdős number has a number less than 8." Of course, the average is not less than 5, since many people have an infinite Erdős number. Among those with finite, what is the source for the average being less than 5?

3259:

It works for me from my house with no login, if I use the link I posted above. The link that used to be in the article does not work, however. I think they must have moved the page on the AMS website, or consolidated the "free" version of the tools into one place, and our link was not updated to

2744:

In general an Erdos number of 4 is nothing to get excited about. But if it shows that some seemingly unrelated field (such as law in this case) then it's significant since it expands the connected component of the Erdos graph significantly, which most other members of strength 4 do not. So the

1769:

Fair enough; I guess xkcd isn't really mainstream enough to warrant mention; if "Zits" mentioned Erdos number, that'll be a different matter! (However, please note that we could, as keen insightful wikipedia editors, mention it in this article without that meaning it has to be mentioned in other

1440:

Does the line improve the article? Hm, I'm cool with it. The article is about an interesting idea that's caught on. Mentioning things that people have done with the idea is appropriate. If the article accumulates enough stuff to harm the readers' understanding of the more important bits, then we

489:

explicitly allows non-mathematical papers, such as neurology papers. I always thought only math papers were intended to count, and I don't think it makes sense in terms of the original idea of connection to the math community to count non-math papers. (This does not mean the author has to be a

3168:

Cushing, where Cushing (EN<=20) is the earliest-born Supreme Court Justice (born 1 March 1732). All these links can be found in Google Scholar. (As a written, co-authored publication on an unsettled question, it seems to me that Supreme Court (or any appeals court) decision should count.)

2951:

Extract - "Nerd fact: My (Kevin) Bacon number is 4 – Self – Dominique Simsion (Voluntary Act) – Beth Child (Push Up) – Meryl Streep (Evil Angels) – Kevin Bacon (The River Wild) My Erdos number is 4: Self – Daniel Moody – Amotz Bar-noy – Nathan Linial – Paul Erdos …. … which gives me the (rare)

1551:

It's like with the Simpsons; they have mentioned umpty-gazillion different events or items over the years, and umpty-gazillion-minus-10 (or so) do not deserve to be in wikipedia because they add nothing to the article in question. But for those other 10 or so, the mention might cause the casual

1517:

Where does this policy end, though? Unfortunately, or fortunately, the author has adopted a shtick which is a penchant for math and physics. Each time he doodles something does the associated math or physics topic on Knowledge get to mention his latest triumph? IMO, at best his feats should get

1187:

The suggestion of an infobox has been made in the discussion on the CfD talk page. I would suggest that there is no reason to stop at 4 or 6 or any number. If a math bio article is about one of the five vertices with Erdos number 13 (supposedly the diameter of the graph at this time), or if the

851:

number but some of them are "infinite" (a phrase never defined precisely, but the whole thing is informal). My recollection of the way combinatorialists talked about it when Erdős was still alive is that the second version was more popular. It is also the definition used in the quasi-official

417:

The definition used by the Erdos Number Project, although not "official" in an academic or bureaucratic sense, is well-established and does seem to include physicists and biologists. A note on the end indicates that a peace manifesto coauthored by Einstein, and reproduced in the New York Times,

398:

have been defined to include say any kind of published material, not just mathematics, but it wasn't. The article merely reflects that original choice. In my experience, the definition given in the article correctly describes how the term is currently understood and used. If you think that the

3652:

adding it the the lede. I'm fairly technical but did not know the term, so I'm guessing it would be meaningless to many, and the lede is supposed to be easy to read, even by the just curious. I am OK with it being in the "See Also" section, as researchers have used it for serious purposes.

840:

The article also talks at one stage about the earliest person to have a *positive* finite Erdős number. This is even more ridiculous since by definition there is no such thing as a negative Erdős number. I have to wonder about the motivation to embellish the language with such pointless words.

4298:

The source you cited does not support your claim. It does not use the word scientometrics or express any view which inconsistent with the view that the Erdos number is a scientometric index. It may call the Erdos number recreational, which it is, but this only shows that scientometrics can be

1649:

This argument is mixing 'culture'. If i write an article about a cultural anecdote which is 'successful' among tribes across the Amazon basin, but unheard of in America's rust-belt, a mention of that anecdote by something low on the radar in the rust-belt is, seemingly by definition, trivial.

4053:

As I have states twice previously, I am following the BRD guidelines: "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the

788:

Gauss died in 1855. Minkowski was born in 1864. So, there is no way they could in any real sense of "co-author" co-author anything. Having Gauss & Minkowski's works collected in the same volume does not count in any way as a collaboration between the two, but merely a decision of later

4178:

This source claims that the Erdos number is a scientometric index. If you disagree, you will have to find show a source which claims that it is not. Otherwise, consensus must reflect that it is. It is not a wikipedian's place to challenge sources on the basis that they disagree with them.

1437:

Anal note: "Notability" is a term that's applied to article subjects and never to article contents. Sorry to nitpick, but we have enough trouble with one arbitrary cut-off point! If people get the idea that statements need multiple independent blah blah we might as well pack up and go

4095:"Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion..." My edit 1824:

applies to article topics and article topics only, and anything else whould be apocalyptic to our ability to write an encyclopedia. What reason is there to require third-party references for simple, individual, clear, uncontroversial sentences? If there isn't any, please don't...

783:

However, according to MathSciNet Carl Friedrich Gauss (born 1777) has Erdős numbers 4 as follows: Gauss – Hermann Minkowski – Albert Einstein – Ernst Gabor Straus – Erdős. The connection between Gauss and Minkowski is a collection of essays containing separate works of both

2154:

existing external content. Why might living persons mentioned in Simkin's paper dislike the association? Even if 1 of them were to, it's still not WP's job to bow to their sensitivities, and WP has means for them to express their views & ban bad sources, if proven.

2634:

May I suggest that the Web Scavenger Hunt pursue its goals by having people do something useful and intelligent, instead of unpaid publicity stunts for B-listers. If you must do it in wikipedia, creating legitimate articles about unreported topics would be wonderful! -

1336:

page regarding Erdős numbers, it says, "Because of his prolific output, friends created the Erdős number as a humorous tribute..." That is a gentle and succinct introduction to what is, in effect, an in-joke between mathematicians who knew of the man. In contrast, the

3224:

Don't know if it is an error. The site works from a university IP without a password, using the university's subscription - the same as most of MathSciNet. This could be accidental or an intentional change, of course. Could you see if this link works better for you?

984:

can someone explain why erdos was chosen, and why it is considered so important? I'm struggling to see how having a high Erdos number is in any way "good" or worthy of any note whatsoever. Same with the Kevin Bacon thing. May I suggest a football one for Liam Brady?

4592:

ten years ago, apparently there were none. If there are some, then sure it should be added here. If there are not, then the mentions in other articles are probably undue and should be removed there. (I am mildly inclined to believe that the latter is the case.)

4090:

1) The discussion was about whether or not an explicit link should be made. The consensus is that it should not. However, all guidelines must be taken into account when reaching consensus, which is why I have proposed this compromise to address existing concerns.

3797:

In recognition of the current consensus that scientometrics is worthy of the "see all" section, I have placed it there. However, I would like the vote as to it's position in the lede to stay open for at least a week so that all interested parties may participate.

342:. I would imagine that academics in many other fields have Erdos numbers as well. In fact, the whole point of the concept is to illustrate the small world phenomenon, so artificially restricting it to the even smaller world of mathematics defeats the purpose. -- 1746:

will reference some concept, which is bound to have a Knowledge article. Are we going to add a link to XKCD for every single strip? XKCD is notable to have its own article, but nowhere near notable that referencing a topic, whether it's Erdos number, or

1798:

I agree with Mintrick. It's not simply about how mainstream XKCD is, but I think also that it's simply a passing reference in a single strip (i.e., we're not just looking at the notability of XKCD or Zits as a whole - we're looking at the notability of

672:

Although I don't have an actual Erdős number, and probably never will, I have studied small amounts of computer science and mathematics under someone who took a combinatorics course (in computer science) under Ralph G. Stanton (who has Erdős number 2).

3937:

That's not how BRD works. The time for the B part has passed. You made an edit, it was reverted, and we're discussing it here. Don't pretend your concerns have been addressed and reinstate your edits or variants of them when they clearly do not have

2042:

That appears strange, since WP has at present about 3.700.000 articles. I would therefore expect about 1.850.000 xkcd cartoons to exist. In fact there are 928, which I am reading these days and found about half a dozen illustrative. For instance the

711:

CJ, some people mean "finite Erdos Number" when they say "Erdos Number". So the line can be made unambiguous by writing "...the average finite Erdos Number is less than 5...". Since I myself wouuld prefer that high-school students not consider

4163:

for professional mathematicians. It is lore; it is entertainment; it is a nod of respect to Erdős. Scientometricians may mention it or compare their own ideas to it, but calling it scientometrical itself gets the mathematical community wrong.

3603:

The proposed lede would both treat a recreational idea too seriously and make the opening passage of the article more difficult to read by loading it up with jargon. The Erdős number is fundamentally entertainment, and reliable sources (like

4568:

So, the Shusaku number entries in other pages refer to this page. That's fine. Except this page does not have any reference to Shusaku number. Shouldn't the Shusaku number and a link to Honinbo Shusaku's page be in the Variations section?

1125:

The desirability of a better mechanism doesn't justify destroying the exisiting one. Please program a better one, or propose a better existing one, and then vote to switch to the better system, instead of just destroying the existing one.

3318:

Scientometrics is about serious measures of academic productivity. An Erdős number says nothing about one's productivity and should not be taken seriously as a measure of anything beyond maybe similarity of research interests to Erdős's.

4257:

You have already linked to that, and I already read it, and my take on it was already expressed by my comment above. I am not "disagreeing" with it; I am evaluating it. Moreover, I have already pointed to a source that backs up my view:

1084:

a great many of the papers involved were never in electronic form (unlike today, when almost any paper would be composed originally MSWord, at least, if not TeX or whatever). So cross-linking all the bibliographies is a huge manual job.

2180:

for publication. In the paper Simkin mentions a number of highly respectable scholars as `accomplices', which might be disliked by the mathematical community. My suggestion is to remove the section completely for the reasons just given.

1617:

When an article is about a succesful cultural anecdote, I feel that the cultural anecdotes it has caused are neither trivial nor irrelevant. Avoiding mentions of popular culture is counterproductive when we write about popular culture.

1357:, whose rules contain no rhyme nor reason (just joking about the cricket). Sadly, if the article is meant to enlighten, the joke needs to be revealed, unless the intention is to keep outsiders in the dark. Surely that isn't the point? 4075:

By the way, nothing I have said here could possibly be construed as not assuming good faith: it is obvious you are acting in good faith, you are just wrong about whether this link should appear in the lead sentence of this article.

3695:

tells us not to fill up the lede with jargon, I don't think that one technical term is too many. The meaning of the jargon is inferable from context, and is not likely to challenge the intellect of the kind of person who reads this

2729:

I agree. Maybe it would be worth mentioning if we were talking about the president or the Pope or some incredibly well-known person like that, but otherwise I think that 3 is the limit. (Hey, that's a math joke! Limit - get it? ) -

1235:

Related to the section "Effect of Erdős' death on the Erdős number," it should be noted that a handful of people continue to get Erdős numbers of 1. According to the Erdős Number Project, the latest was a paper in 2007.

239:

I have heard of people who published multiple papers with Erdos having fractional Erdos numbers. For instance if you published 5 papers directly with Erdos you have a number of 1/5. Has anyone else heard of this usage?

810:

Infinity is not a number. If a person doesn't have a chain of coauthors linking them to Erdős, you can say their Erdős number is infinite or say that it's undefined. Erdős number and finite Erdős number are synonyms.

2995:

The last paragraph of the Overview section says 134,007 mathematicians have an Erdos number. So we must know the Erdos number of each of them. What is the largest Erdos number? This would fit well into that paragraph.

2674:

himself was the Zero. Anyone who has sat on a couch with Erdős is a One. Anyone other than Erdős, and not a One, who has sat on a couch with a One is a Two, and so on. For example, the late logician and philosopher

3129:

Laplace is such a person with the EN=14. But Laplace published an article in co-authorship with Antoine Lavoisier (which is used to calculate EN for Laplace), and Lavoisier was born in 1743, 6 years before Laplace.

4528:

Upon further reading, sources do not refer to it explicitly as a scientometric index, but only as an object of study in scientometrics and bibliometrics. In light of this discovery, I have decided to resolve the

4622:). It uses the phrase only in quotation marks and is clear that it is coining a neologism. Also, it doesn't even make the case that this is a good analogy (the point of Erdős and Bacon is not that they're the 1135:

I think's a great pity that a few of the editors who wanted this category kept have not also retained their civility. Describing the delete !voters as "innumerate people" is a quite unnecessary personal attack.

3714:

2) Reputable sources do consider it a scientometric index. I doubt that any reputable source will say that it is not. Therefor, as wikipedians, we should consider it a scientometric index without qualification.

4049:

is a new concern, which was not raised in the original discussion. If you would like to raise it now, you are free to do so in seeking a second consensous. I do not believe that an indirect link violates this

1159:

as "innumerate", yes, because the logic presented isn't coherent to me. As a whole, they seem to be non-mathematicians with no identifiable interest in the topic, and I have no clue, honestly, what they want.

1587:

Newsweek, CNN, ...) then i could see it being mentioned in the article; however, the logic of ("XKCD's like totally popular" && "XKCD's latest burp alludes to the Erdős number") doesn't meet the bar.

3717:

3) With these things considered, I do think that the acknowledgement that the Erdos number is a scientometric index is an asset to this article. I welcome new votes, and urge those who have already voted to

1548:

No, not each time he doodles but if one of the doodles happens to be useful for reflecting new light on a particular article, then yes. The decision will have to be made each time- this isn't all or nothing.

2050:

But of course, one has to keep things in perspective: The danger of millions of cartoons flooding Knowledge must be nipped in the bud. As I said before: I can have this type of thing on de-WP any day (see

1903:; this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition) is to provide information to the reader about how far a concept has spread through society. This can be useful to readers, which is the point of wikipedia. 1650:

Reframed: when we write about an article about the Erdős number, we are nowhere close to writing "about popular culture", which seems to make your final sentence not applicable to the case at hand.

1222:

Perhaps "tends to increase"? While you are at it, you might also want to do something about the section title ("Effect of Erdős' death on the Erdős number") which doesn't really fit the contents.

4576: 1102: 2714:. I contend not, because a huge portion of the chattering classes probably has such a number, and if we list one, we are Wiki-ethically obligated to try to list as many as we can. Do the math! 3134:

This has a good, reliable source, so I changed it. One the other hand, Lavoisier was a chemist, so Laplace might still be the earliest mathematician. But that's not what the sentence says.

996:; a fascinating man. He was highly idiosyncratic, very much respected as a genius in the field; and he travelled widely, meeting huge numbers of fellow mathematcians. That's why he was chosen. 140: 2798:

RB Ginsburg, giving Ginsburg a number of at most 10. Each of these links can be found with Google Scholar. Of course this is original research, so I did not include it in the article.

4630:). I will not take any action immediately, but unless someone finds a better source, I will at some point try to remember to remove the references to the concept from other articles. -- 2445:. If so it is misspelled thoughout the article. Also, the URL for this article does not work, perhaps because the character used in his name is not recognized. This should be fixed. 716:

as a number (but as part of a process), I prefer to say "Spencer's Erdos Number is 1 and Pete does not have an Erdos Number" instead of "...Pete's EN is infinity". Some things called

3366:

page. It's no wonder that Knowledge has trouble keeping newcomers. Edit warring and mockery are not suitable behavior for an administrator. I am only trying to improve this page. --

548:(maybe re the history of Erdos numbers), I think you'd have to look to practice in the scholarly field to determine whether the wikipedia article counted for erdos number purposes. 2886:

centuries; then just a few collaborations between authors belonging to different isles will immediately turn a great deal of infinities to finite numbers. What is true is that:

3380:

If there were a LIKE button on Knowledge, I'd push it. But I support Wikiman on all counts. The Erdos number is aa lodestar in the sociology of science: how do scholars connect?

4658:, we should generally avoid idioms in favor of more direct phrases, even if the idioms are in common use. I couldn't really think of a better way to phrase it (hence why I put 3711:

not "valuable", but then again, one could just as easily argue that any other piece of sociological data is not valuable. This kind of sociological data is completely valid.

2415:

small group of mathematicians is more notable than any random anime distributed in bigger number of copies than amount of matematicians who care about Erdos number. Anon

273:

has two dots above the o, while Erdos has a "long Umlaut", which looks more or less like two acute accents close to each other, but the Umlaut page does not mention it.

1944:

Why does the definition use the phrase 'mathematical paper' when everyone seems to ignore that? (And, BTW, xkcd is so cool, that I cannot mention it without violating

2683:

could claim to be at most a Two, because he once sat on a pew (which counts as a couch) next to me. Erdős had once sat on a couch where I was sitting, in a lobby in

1004:

other ways, and not have any number at all. Having a low number is like attending a prestigious school, it doesn't mean you are cool, it is just one piece of evidence.

2393:

mentions Bacon number and Erdős number, but doesn't specifically name "F number" as being a "Snyatkovsky number" (and even if it did, we would require an independent

358:

Wouldn't that small number be either 0 or else everybody in the union of both graphs? (which would in fact then be the same graph, with a different specified root)--

4054:

discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion..." By reverting my edits, you are not. Additionally, Knowledge's guidelines require you to assume good faith. --

4589: 3067: 3063: 3049: 1105:, and I have added some rebuttals, but I can tell you it's frustrating. It just astonishes me that so many innumerate people would even care about Erdos Numbers. 177: 3688:

2) The readers are likely to be interested in this subject. We should place links that interest and inform the readers. I don't think that this is "shoehorning".

3916: 3438: 3183:

Some sources limit the definition of Erdős numbers only to publications on mathematical topics (widely construed), not to academic scholarship more generally. —

485:

presently says "as measured by authorship of mathematical papers." (Not all other parts of the article are consistent with that requirement.) The article on

394:

may well have an Erdos number, if he coauthored a mathematical paper. As to it being "arbitrary", of course it is, all definitions are arbitrary. Erdos number

1101:

general public perceptions to look at some of the reasons given for the deletion. The admin who deleted it has begun to compile some of the reasons given at

4276:

As for the knowledge tree, I find it is amply watered by the links already in the article, including the "See also" section, so that's a moot point. Nor is

3783:

the proposed lede change. I agree with David the Erdős number is virtually meaningless as a measure of anything particularly useful (by the way mine is 3).

4753: 1016:

I was told that Erdos is the guy this is done with because he worked on the field of random graph theory, which is related to the idea of the Erdos #. --

130: 4684:

long like "had no home of his own but spent all his time staying in the homes of other mathematicians all over the world, living out of a suitcase". -

3635:. This doesn't do anything to help readers understand Erdős numbers; it appears to be intended purely as a way to shoehorn the link into the article. — 3150:

Since Erdős number link into other fields, the oldest number might not belong to a mathematician. For example, a link to the legal field is Roth-: -->

2581:

Nope, Knowledge is not the place for the latest social media fads. This is an artificial attempt to inflate the importance of one particular person.--

2816:

Continuing this thread, at least one American president had a finite Erdos number. The chain of jointly argued decisions might go RB Ginsburg -: -->

4375: 3035: 2842:

Isn't the link to Phys Author Rank Algorithm a spam? It is self referential and no source demostrates its relevance. Shouldn't the link be deleted?

2567: 3773: 2525: 2008:

Yes, it is possible for the Erdős number to decrease in this way. It does not depend on the order in which the papers on the path were written. —

4429: 4348: 4173: 3621: 4293: 3919:. The same principle has been applied in other fields where a particular individual has collaborated with a large and broad number of peers. -- 3528: 106: 1360:

Could the opening paragraph be changed to include a reference to its humorous nature to prevent strangers to the subject from being mislead?

4748: 3870: 2953: 1965:

Actually, the MathSciNet distance calculator only considers mathematical papers (more specifically, papers within the MathSciNet database). —

1145: 536: 3441:. The same principle has been applied in other fields where a particular individual has collaborated with a large and broad number of peers. 2390: 2352:

How do you decide that such games as chess and go are more notable than "What? Where? When?"? The entire concept of Erdős number belongs to

1993: 1367: 4015:

seven people have opposed adding this link to the lead, and none have supported it. To add it under those circumstances is foolhardy; to

857:. So I propose writing the whole article in that fashion, with a passing mention that some people prefer "not existing" over "infinite". 196:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see 4449:

Here is a second source which states that the Erdos number is a topic of study is scientometrics, just in case the first is disputed. --

3986:

link on top of it, celearly indicates that you DO NOT "have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns". This is heading towards

2926: 2893: 2843: 2772:. In particular see table 2, noting that some of the famous folks in other fields are shown to have Erdos numbers of at most 7 or 8. 2508: 2416: 2328: 2275: 1922:

David expresses the situation well. There are no simple rules which we can use to answer this type of question. Such situations require

1720:

Not to beat this totally to death, but sampling en Knowledge as a whole citing a specific XKCD doodle in an article is actually done in

1313: 961: 878: 626: 2136:

of "Berezovsky number has no scientific significance. The living persons mentioned in Simkin's paper might dislike the association.".

4580: 2452: 1042: 760: 3874:

try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." --

3333:

I see no reason that scientometrics should not be fun. This source calls the Erdos number "a topic of research in scientometrics". --

2501:

I would like to submit Misha Collins as an honorary co-author to a mathematical paper which would assign him the Erdos number of 1.

1382:

You have a point - "created as a humorous tribute" is a great way to put it, too. Let's stick it in the lede and see what happens. -

4138: 4038: 3862: 3678: 3408: 3045:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

549: 468: 97: 58: 1862:

I agree that content within an article doesn't need to be notable, however, mentioning the erdos number in a random comic strip is

837:

a concise meaning? Far better to say in more concise and explanatory fashion that they either have an Erdős number or they don't.

3982:

Reinstating the same bad edit to the lead sentence, clearly opposed by the discussion above, and merely disguising it by making a

951:

Still missing after 7 months. Surely someone must know. And is there an anglicised equivalent (UK ˈɛədɜːʃ/US ˈɛrdɜːʃ, perhaps)? —

399:

article incorrectly defines Erdos number, I would have to see some reliable source for this notion, before I could agree with it.

2692: 285:. This is too ephemeral to put into the article yet, I think, but maybe once the auction is over it might be worth a mention. -- 1755:

article - but I doubt mentions of an individual strip would be considered notable there, so they're certainly not notable here.

3685:. That is the purpose of this link. Therefore, Knowledge's technical jargon guidelines must be balanced against this principle. 247: 3458: 871:

Here "positive" must mean "non-zero". The earliest person to have a non-negative Erdos number is, by definition, Paul Erdos.

4259: 3605: 2121: 2047:

strip appeared illustrative. I have known people who co-authored a paper, because of the low Erdös number of another author.

4211:"Analysis of Papers from Twenty-five Years of SIGIR Conferences: What Have We Been Doing for the Last Quarter of a Century?" 3736:

own, and it has in fact been studied by people in the field of scientometrics (or at least people publishing in the journal

3544:"Analysis of Papers from Twenty-five Years of SIGIR Conferences: What Have We Been Doing for the Last Quarter of a Century?" 4271: 259:

Ihave a erdos number through mckay! Why is there a link to "Umlaut"? In fact the 4th character in Erdos' name is not the

4099:

In refusing to seek second consensus, as required by wikipedia's guidelines, your behavior may constitute edit warring. --

2265: 932:

please add the pronunciation according to it? Most people aren't familiar with Hungarian and will mispronounce the name. -

3703:

In response to the argument that the Erdos number is not a "real" scientomentric index, I supply the following rebuttal:

3110: 1408: 1028:

Erdos is the highest degree node in the largest connected component. That makes him a natural "root" node to designate.

33: 2857:

That sentence and its references don't seem to have any substantial connection to Erdos numbers; I have removed it. --

1829: 1622: 1445: 430: 2670:

et al. based on it), but a more significant and prestigious number is the related Erdős Couch Number. Mathematician

1751:, means that it should be mentioned in all those articles. If anywhere, the only appropropriate place would be the 1350: 486: 3036:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150924054224/http://www.oakland.edu/upload/docs/Erdos%20Number%20Project/trails.pdf

1141: 226: 173: 3066:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2889:(1) Given mathematicians X and Y, ther collaboration distance cannot increase with time, but it might decrease. 4160: 3995: 3987: 3943: 3640: 3352: 3324: 3303:

is a scientiomentric measurement. There is no reason that such measurements cannot be fun as well as useful. --

3250: 3188: 2957: 2617: 2526:

http://www.eonline.com/news/566571/how-misha-collins-got-supernatural-fans-to-completely-take-over-the-internet

2228: 2095: 2060: 2040:

The problem is, there's an XKCD cartoon for 50 percent of WP articles - just like there's a simpsons reference.

2013: 1970: 1853: 1473: 1371: 658: 532: 435: 1997: 3347:

The source's title is "Download limit exceeded"? That definitely makes me think it's reliable and on-topic. —

2930: 2897: 2847: 2512: 2420: 1317: 965: 882: 724:, but that's an advanced topic and people studying those topics don't need to be warned about the ambiguity. 630: 4518: 4365: 4081: 4024: 3764:

I don't have any substantial objection to listing it in the "See also". Small cost, small benefit, I'd say.

3754: 3214: 3158:

RB Ginsburg. And once on the Supreme Court, there are lots of co-authored decisions, i.e RB Ginsburg -: -->

3101: 3027: 2912: 2862: 2676: 2279: 2247: 2185: 1404: 913: 764: 4334: 4188: 4159:

I, for one, don't agree. None of the sources presented here have changed my opinion that it is essentially

2117: 553: 472: 4689: 4619: 4551: 3849: 3403:

I propose that the lede be changed to the following in order to recognize the Erdos number's place in the

3245:

As far as I know it has always required either a log in or an IP address from a subscribing institution. —

2735: 2696: 2640: 2533: 2456: 2080: 1912: 1775: 1557: 1496: 1427: 1387: 1046: 528: 3039: 2769: 2376: 1017: 356:

A small number of people are connected to both Erdős and Bacon and thus have a finite Erdős-Bacon number.

251: 4673: 4534: 4454: 4425: 4408: 4383: 4344: 4330: 4289: 4267: 4184: 4169: 4146: 4104: 4059: 3973: 3924: 3879: 3803: 3787: 3769: 3723: 3658: 3617: 3590: 3522: 3371: 3338: 3308: 3209:

now requires a login. Does anybody know since when this is and if it is an error by the admins there? --

3174: 3139: 3085:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3073: 2980: 2825: 2803: 2777: 2750: 2471: 2365: 2336: 2243: 2181: 1930: 1848:. We should not give undue weight to trivialities, and in this case I think any weight would be undue. — 729: 403: 39: 3026:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2723: 2162:

emerges on this page. As ever, other editors are cordially encouraged to have further say, below here.

1955: 952: 83: 2550: 490:

mathematician. The paper should be mathematical.) Do we want consistency? And by what definition?

4572: 4157:

As I think we have agreed by now the sources indicate that the Erdos number is a scientometric index.

3385: 2719: 2504: 2448: 2271: 2205: 2167: 1989: 1423: 1363: 1309: 1137: 1075: 874: 622: 586: 524: 243: 4321:

that the Erdos number is a scientometric index. Therefore I believe that this link makes sense, and

4133:

that the Erdos number is a scientometric index. Therefore I believe that this link makes sense, and

1468:

are both very relevant. Based on that I think the whole "Cultural anecdotes" subsection should go. —

282: 21: 4651: 4635: 4598: 4322: 4317: 4281: 4134: 4129: 4046: 4034: 3991: 3983: 3939: 3692: 3636: 3632: 3348: 3320: 3246: 3184: 2788: 2613: 2361: 2224: 2159: 2091: 2056: 2009: 1966: 1849: 1685: 1469: 1422:

Is a webcomic strip mentioning Erdős really notable enough to justify an addition to this article?

933: 654: 452: 225:

Please note: the above notice does not currently point to the current Deletion Review, which is at

1951: 1704:

XKCD mentions things like this all the time. There is no significance to this specific reference.

1237: 1007:

Yes, the same thing is done with other personalities, e.g. appearing in a movie with Kevin Bacon.

519:

Definitely not. Knowledge is encyclopedic; it contains only things that have already been thought.

105:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4514: 4361: 4360:

This is quickly becoming tiresome. There is clear consensus against your edit, in either form. --

4355: 4077: 4020: 3902: 3750: 3424: 3362:

as bibliometric in nature, which is the same but more general. This also justifies a link to the

3285: 3210: 2908: 2858: 2680: 2575: 2546: 2405: 1789: 1709: 909: 89: 3070:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2090:

not want to start the type of elongated discussion I know all too well from de-WP. Greetings. --

1205:... As a result of this drift, the mean Erdős number of living people must increase over time... 73: 52: 4615: 3086: 2223:

so, unless they are by a recognized expert in the subject area, they don't count as reliable. —

4685: 4612: 4547: 4546:

Wow - a long wikipedia edit tussle ends with a thoughtful, adult response. Is that allowed? -

4230: 3845: 3747: 3745: 3743: 3741: 3670:: In response to the argument that the link is too technical, I supply the following rebuttal: 3563: 3504: 2952:

Erdos-Bacon number of 8. Colin Firth and Natalie Portman have 6s. Partner also 8. Of course."

2731: 2636: 2529: 2076: 2031: 1908: 1771: 1729: 1655: 1592: 1553: 1523: 1492: 1383: 1241: 1212:

particular piece of fact. So I would prefer improving the explication, to merely deleting it.

700:

Perhaps it should be median? I am inclined to delete the sentence if there is not a source. (

189: 2327:

of articles, journals, and authors, even in a formal and scholarly context. See for example

2264:

But the arXiv article appeared in Significance (a magazine of the Royal Statistical Society)

649:

Knowledge articles don't have individual authors who get credited for their publication, per

610:

has edited this talk page, so I guess that my adding this edit bumps me up from 3 to 2 ;-p --

4730: 4707: 4669: 4662: 4530: 4485: 4477: 4450: 4421: 4405: 4379: 4340: 4326: 4285: 4280:-linking a good way to help the reader. Replacing an overly technical turn of phrase with a 4263: 4222: 4180: 4165: 4142: 4100: 4055: 4006: 3969: 3920: 3875: 3799: 3784: 3765: 3719: 3654: 3613: 3586: 3555: 3496: 3367: 3334: 3304: 3170: 3135: 3001: 2976: 2821: 2799: 2773: 2746: 2468: 2332: 2307:

2 : the force of impression of one thing on another : a significant or major effect <the

2151: 1927: 1863: 1461: 1213: 1161: 1127: 1106: 1086: 1029: 1008: 822: 725: 495: 400: 230: 4420:. That's kind of what I was going for above, but it's better to make the point explicitly. 3206: 3093: 2383: 1820:*cough* *cough* sorry. It's just that, right at the start of this section, I went into how 4668:

for someone else to do it, lol), but I still think it's something that should be changed.

4513:

above. I very much doubt that linking to it a second time is going to change anything. --

4404:) in the lede. I would suppose, so are most of the other editors who have opposed above. 4401: 3381: 2907:

Point (2) is surely what was intended; I have made the small wording change necessary. --

2715: 2485: 2201: 2163: 1845: 1834: 1627: 1450: 1189: 684: 674: 611: 481:

Knowledge has not decided whether Erdos numbers must involve math papers. The article on

444: 374: 359: 303: 3226: 3019: 2768:

some point in their career). This is the exactly what Castro and Grossman points out in

2688: 2663: 1891:(Unindenting) The reason for listing some popular-culture references in articles (that's 1346: 1338: 482: 193: 3484: 825: 815: 793: 4631: 4608: 4594: 4042: 3960: 3906: 3866: 3682: 3609: 3428: 3404: 3052:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2711: 2266:

http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/1393253/Berezovsky-number.html

2125: 1871: 1808: 1760: 1681: 1223: 1063: 688: 448: 343: 321: 311: 4209:

Smeaton, Alan F.; Keogh, Gary; Gurrin, Cathal; McDonald, Kieran; Sødring, Tom (2003).

3542:

Smeaton, Alan F.; Keogh, Gary; Gurrin, Cathal; McDonald, Kieran; Sødring, Tom (2003).

3092:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4742: 4417: 4397: 3911: 3433: 3363: 3281: 3267: 3235: 2671: 2401: 2220: 2052: 1785: 1705: 1333: 1173: 943: 821:

I've just realized that my Erdös number is 3. I have published with Gilles Brassard.

683:

Courses don't count, I'm afraid. If they did, I'd have an Erdős number by virtue of

650: 510: 286: 216: 2524:

This is part of an internet prank hosted by that person, who is some sort of actor.

1552:

reader to realize that the topic has more impact than would otherwise be obvious. -

1041:

the Great Man himself and thus we now know that there is an afterlife! Teeheehee. --

3820: 3151:

Posner. But Posner is linked to Supreme Court justice Ginsberg, via AE Roth -: -->

2968: 2667: 2584: 2394: 2300: 2216: 2144: 2133: 1725: 1651: 1588: 1519: 1279:, it is no longer possible for a person to be newly assigned an Erdős number of 1." 569: 391: 339: 335: 307: 1328:

Gentle, humorous tribute to a great man, or profound measurement of collaboration?

3500: 2200:

Do we have any proof (or suspicion?) that any of Simkin's content is inaccurate?

1353:

which must never be explained lest the joke be lost, or that other pretend game,

4726: 4703: 4033:

It is my understanding that this edit was opposed for the following reasons: 1)

3059: 2997: 2972: 2745:

importance here is that the number is finite, not that it's particularly low.

2150:

The paper is already in the public domain, and Knowledge (WP) doesn't generally

1821: 745: 491: 274: 102: 2070:

Geez, everybody knows that "50 percent" is shorthand for "wicked lots of them"!

988:). Got a 61 in his course though (not due to lack of effort). - 212.247.170.12 4489: 3058:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2609: 2481: 1826: 1619: 1442: 942:

Could someone please add a stress mark to the IPA? Is it ˈɛrdøːʃ or ɛrˈdøːʃ?

858: 844: 800: 756: 607: 334:

scientists have Erdos numbers. For example, our own article on the physicist

299: 79: 4233: 3817:: The Erdős number of a mathematician has little to do with scientometrics.-- 3566: 3507: 4655: 4210: 3543: 2881:. This is likely to be true (only in a special sense, see below), but not a 2467:

What's your source for this, all the sources I've checked spell it "Erdős".

1867: 1804: 1756: 1117: 812: 744:

analysed the data from Math Reviews. I added a few words to the article. --

701: 4734: 4711: 4693: 4677: 4639: 4602: 4555: 4538: 4522: 4478:"Co-authorship, rational Erdős numbers, and resistance distances in graphs" 4458: 4411: 4387: 4369: 4150: 4137:

does not apply here. If it does, it must be balanced against the weight of

4108: 4085: 4063: 4028: 3999: 3977: 3947: 3928: 3883: 3853: 3834: 3807: 3790: 3758: 3727: 3662: 3644: 3594: 3389: 3375: 3356: 3342: 3328: 3312: 3299:

I disagree that scientiometrics is of "dubious relevance". An Erdos number

3289: 3272: 3254: 3240: 3218: 3192: 3178: 3143: 3115: 3005: 2984: 2961: 2934: 2916: 2901: 2866: 2851: 2829: 2807: 2781: 2754: 2739: 2700: 2644: 2621: 2598: 2574:: GISHWHES Net Web Scavenger Hunt Gets People Out of Their Comfort Zones. 2554: 2537: 2516: 2489: 2474: 2460: 2424: 2409: 2369: 2340: 2283: 2251: 2232: 2209: 2189: 2171: 2099: 2084: 2064: 2017: 2001: 1974: 1959: 1933: 1916: 1875: 1857: 1839: 1812: 1793: 1779: 1764: 1733: 1713: 1689: 1659: 1632: 1596: 1561: 1527: 1500: 1477: 1455: 1431: 1412: 1391: 1375: 1321: 1245: 1226: 1216: 1192: 1176: 1164: 1150: 1130: 1120: 1109: 1089: 1078: 1050: 1032: 1020: 1011: 969: 960:

I corrected it. In Hungarian the stress is always on the first syllable. --

955: 946: 936: 917: 886: 862: 803: 768: 748: 733: 704: 677: 662: 634: 614: 589: 572: 557: 513: 499: 476: 456: 414: 377: 362: 346: 255: 233: 219: 4226: 3559: 2820:

William Howard Taft. (all from the Case Law search of Google scholar).

306:

for discussion), I think that for consistency this article should live at

3263: 3231: 1844:

If you have some sort of phobia against calling it notability, how about

855: 790: 410: 4019:

add it is disruptive edit-warring, and is liable to get you blocked. --

3608:, the standard source for Erdős lore) treat it as such. Note that even 2879:

Collaboration distances will necessarily increase over long time scales

2684: 1354: 720:, such as Aleph-Null and Omega, can indeed be considered as numbers in 585:

Ok, this makes me wonder: which Knowledge articles has Erdős edited?

418:

assigned Einstein a 2 and the other to-be-Nobelist collaborators a 3.

4618:

2011 blog post at the website of the American Go Association (used at

3483:

Uddin, Shahadat; Hossain, Liaquat; Rasmussen, Kim (28 February 2013).

3040:

http://www.oakland.edu/upload/docs/Erdos%20Number%20Project/trails.pdf

2948: 2120:

suggests that number should be used to represent the distance between

2400:

So, "How do you decide ?" - By consulting/finding Reliable sources. –

264: 3126: 293:

The link is now dead and should probably be removed from the article

4396:

to the "indirect link" to "scientometrics" (per among other things

3431:

which describes the "collaborative distance" between mathematician

2158:

Hence, I have reinstated the section concerned, for now, until any

896:

I argue that infinite Erdős numbers are almost mandatory. Suppose,

619:

thanks for the idea,i now have a Erdős number of two.Ha! Acadamia

467:

here on a wikipedia talk page get to decide what the definition is.

4607:

I just took a look at all articles that link to the redirect page

993: 4702:

I reworded the sentence before seeing this comment. Best wishes,

2320:

and 4 of their 5 examples are non-physical impacts of this kind.

283:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3189039958

2024: 1945: 1752: 390:

restricted to "mathematical papers", as the definition says. So

4588:

Are there any reliable sources about the Shusaku number? When

2943:

Graeme Simison - author - Erdos number 4 - Erdos-Bacon number 8

2967:

You need much better sourcing than your personal website. See

2576:

http://fox10tv.com/2014/08/05/gishwhes-new-web-scavenger-hunt/

929: 156: 15: 4476:

Balaban, Alexandru T.; Klein, Douglas J. (1 September 2002).

4070:

even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion

2353: 1155:

I don't mean to "attack" any individuals. I've described the

1116:

we had a more flexible technical solution than at present. __

741: 2791:, has a finite Erdos number, due to the chain AE Roth -: --> 2299:

Impact is clearly a reasonable choice here. For example, a

509:

Does any Knowledge article count as a mathematical paper? --

2710:

Another editor and I are having this agreement about Judge

3869:

and the guideline against jargon at the same time. I have

3280:

It worked for me a few weeks ago when I used the option.

3030:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1207:

as unsourced and "illogical". The statement does not say

338:

mentions the fact that he has both an Erdos number and a

3890:

For convienience, I have posted the contested edit here:

3207:

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/collaborationDistance.html

386:

The concept is not restricted to mathematicians, but it

4510: 4139:

using links to identify the place in the knowledge tree

3023: 2391:

http://ratingnew.chgk.info/players.php?show_bacon_stats

2350: 2197:

Hmm - that would seem to be some elaborate joke, then.

2112:

One editor added the following section to the article:

2035: 1748: 1721: 1465: 201: 197: 168: 3909:

of the "collaborative distance" between mathematician

3585:

I would like to hear opinions and obtain consensus. --

2219:

for its significance. Arxiv preprints are essentially

2044: 1302:

a few co-written articles to be published posthumously

1742:

I agree with not including it. Consider: practically

227:

Knowledge:Deletion_review#Category:Erd.C5.91s_numbers

3865:

which tells us to link to an article's place in the

2140: 1064:

http://www.math.ucla.edu/~timaustin/wranglejump.html

101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3062:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2706:

Should a Notable Person's Erdos of 4 be highlighted

2566:tags on this page without content in them (see the 1305:, 2 is the lowest number that can now be achieved." 3437:and another person, as measured by authorship of 2557:AODLLM (Army of Dragonflies loves Lucky Minions) 2323:Also, in scholarly work it is common to rate the 2215:We don't need it. What we need to include it are 1299:This is noteworthy because with the exception of 373:Never mind...different criteria for the edges. -- 354:I noticed the following sentence in the article: 4339:Repeating your assertion does not make it true. 1986:their shortest path get smaller Erdős numbers? 1518:mention in the XKCD article, and no place else. 4654:, re: the phrase "lived out of a suitcase"—per 4614:. Among them, there is exactly one reference, 4041:tells us to consider an article's place in the 3681:tells us to consider an article's place in the 653:, so they don't lead to co-authorship. Sorry. — 281:There is an Erdos Number of 5 on sale at ebay: 3485:"Network Effects on Scientific Collaborations" 3201:Collaboration distance site is password locked 3048:This message was posted before February 2018. 2873:Collaboration distances over long time scales. 3915:and another person based on co-authorship of 3121:Earliest person to have a finite Erdős number 2397:to verify its notability/veracity as a term). 2379:does not mention the name "Anton Snyatkovsky" 2132:Another editor removed the section, with the 8: 3844:" It certainly doesn't belong in the lede. - 2480:the common browsers should have no problem. 3612:explicitly avoid putting any weight on it. 1926:of the just the kind that David describes. 4570: 3610:our own guidelines for academic notability 3018:I have just modified one external link on 1267:Effect of Erdős' death on the Erdős number 1254:One of these things is not like the other. 789:editors..... So I will delete this bit. -- 47: 2705: 779:I'm sorry, but this just doesn't cut it: 443:published collaboration, does this mean 415:http://www.oakland.edu/enp/erdpaths.html 215:Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- 4468: 4201: 3450: 2382:Google has zero results for the phrase 1784:No, that wouldn't be important either. 775:Gauss-Minkowski - just ain't gonna work 49: 19: 4626:at what they did, it's that they were 4577:2607:fa49:283f:b400:d9f6:5dbe:e566:e79 4156: 4069: 3520: 1276:no works of his remain to be published 429:Where does one draw the line, though? 411:http://www.oakland.edu/enp/readme.html 4392:For the avoidance of doubt, I'm also 3901: 3423: 3125:The article claims that according to 2301:Merriam-Webster dictionary definition 302:article no longer has an umlaut (see 7: 2787:At least one Supreme Court justice, 2303:includes (italics in the original): 439:, has am Erdos number of 3. If it's 95:This article is within the scope of 2949:http://graemesimsion.com/?page_id=2 2558: 2055:). This was a test. en-WP fails. -- 1203:Someone just deleted the statement 928:Would someone who is familiar with 759:has an Erdős number less than 1 ;) 38:It is of interest to the following 3527:: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( 1273:Given that Erdős died in 1996 and 14: 4754:Mid-priority mathematics articles 3127:https://oakland.edu/enp/erdpaths/ 3022:. Please take a moment to review 2356:, and here we have a list of its 2329:this discussion on impact factors 606:He hasn't, so far as I know. But 115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics 904:human has an Erdős number." Now 160: 118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics 82: 72: 51: 20: 4376:Dispute resolution noticeboards 3631:unnecessary jargon in lead per 2268:. Must be significant enough. 2143:looks to me to be a reasonable 1258:Article is self-contradictory, 832:Concise and meaningful language 263:(o-umlaut, ö) mentioned on the 135:This article has been rated as 3290:02:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 3193:17:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC) 3179:15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC) 3144:19:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC) 3116:07:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC) 2354:the folklore of mathematicians 2311:of science on our society: --> 1680:I think it's worth mentioning 1392:22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1376:21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 668:Not exactly an Erdős number... 514:22:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 4735:18:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 4712:18:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 4694:13:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC) 4678:05:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC) 3301:might very well be considered 2830:04:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC) 2808:04:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) 2782:05:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) 2755:05:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC) 2740:16:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 2724:16:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 2284:23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 1322:03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 1246:11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 970:12:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 956:15:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 937:07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 887:11:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 863:03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 769:10:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 734:17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 256:02:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 234:04:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 109:and see a list of open tasks. 4749:B-Class mathematics articles 4511:already linked to this paper 4260:Hoffman's biography of Erdős 3501:10.1371/journal.pone.0057546 2341:11:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 2252:20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 2233:18:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 2210:17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 2190:16:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 2172:13:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 2018:15:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 2002:15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 1227:18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 1217:16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 1193:17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 1177:17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 1165:17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 1151:01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 1131:17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 1121:11:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1110:19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1090:19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1033:19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1021:08:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1012:19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 908:is concise. And meaningful.— 826:03:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 615:08:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 590:23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 573:21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 505:Do Knowledge articles count? 378:16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 363:16:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4720:Check your own Erdős number 3273:21:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 3255:16:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 3241:14:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 3219:14:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 3006:16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 2985:13:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 2962:08:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 2770:Famous Trails to Paul Erdos 2701:12:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 2691:never did). Fritz Lehmann. 2139:Well, the cited repository 2124:and connecting scientists. 1975:15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 1960:10:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 663:03:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 635:00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 500:01:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC) 457:11:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 4770: 4093:I am following guidelines: 3079:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3015:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2935:21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2917:15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2902:11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2867:15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2852:11:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2645:22:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 2622:16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 2599:15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 2555:15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 2538:13:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 2517:11:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 2490:01:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC) 2475:00:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 2461:23:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 2346:Notability highly dubious™ 1351:Mornington Crescent (game) 1079:19:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 816:06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 774: 447:has an Erdos number of 4? 314:23:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) 298:Since the location of the 4646:"lived out of a suitcase" 4640:00:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC) 4603:00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC) 4097:was not made to edit war. 3459:"Download Limit Exceeded" 2425:09:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 2100:15:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 2085:14:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 2065:14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 2053:German humour#Stereotypes 1934:15:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC) 1917:13:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC) 1876:18:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 1858:18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 1840:18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 1813:23:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1794:22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1780:22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1765:21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1734:19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1714:19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1690:18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1660:18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1633:17:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1597:17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1562:17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1528:17:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1501:16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1478:13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1456:07:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1432:06:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1413:03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1051:11:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 947:21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 918:03:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 804:13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 794:11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 749:22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 705:21:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 678:12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 558:22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 477:19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 406:19:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC) 289:23:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) 200:; for its talk page, see 134: 67: 46: 4556:13:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) 4539:20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4523:19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4459:19:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4430:19:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4412:18:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4388:18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4374:I will post a notice on 4370:18:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4349:18:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4335:18:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4294:17:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4272:17:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4189:17:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4174:17:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4161:recreational mathematics 4151:17:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4109:17:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4086:17:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4064:17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4029:16:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 4000:16:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 3978:16:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 3948:16:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 3929:19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 3884:15:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 3854:10:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 3835:04:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 3808:23:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3791:22:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3774:22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3759:20:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3728:21:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3663:20:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3645:20:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3622:20:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3595:18:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3390:17:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3376:16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3357:16:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3343:16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3329:16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 3313:14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 2410:21:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC) 2370:10:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC) 1096:Deletion of the Category 436:The Science of Discworld 347:19:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 324:01:54, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) 277:12:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) 211:Very old assorted topics 141:project's priority scale 4590:the article was deleted 4490:10.1023/A:1016098803527 3861:how to accommodate the 3011:External links modified 2677:Willard van Orman Quine 1744:every single XKCD strip 1059:Include Gowers Numbers? 329:Not just mathematicians 220:16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 98:WikiProject Mathematics 4620:Small-world experiment 4325:does not apply here.-- 4068:The salient phrase is 3407:as recommended by the 2658:The Erdős Couch Number 2437:I believe the name is 2318: 1981:Erdős numbers and time 1199:Distribution over time 992:You should read about 28:This article is rated 4416:Good point regarding 4227:10.1145/945546.945550 3560:10.1145/945546.945550 3463:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu 2389:Google translate for 2312:<an environmental 2305: 2118:M.V. (Mikhail) Simkin 1722:73 different articles 722:certain number fields 4316:My understanding of 4128:My understanding of 3060:regular verification 2991:Largest Erdos number 2384:"Snyatkovsky number" 1069:number of co-authors 999:A high Erdos Number 853:Erdős number project 742:Erdos number project 188:. Its contents were 184:with a consensus to 121:mathematics articles 3917:mathematical papers 3606:Hoffman's biography 3439:mathematical papers 3429:scientometric index 3161:Harlan Stone -: --> 3155:AL Kalleberg -: --> 3050:After February 2018 2819:Harlan Stone -: --> 2795:AL Kalleberg -: --> 2789:Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1924:editorial judgement 487:Erdős–Bacon numbers 4628:extremely prolific 3159:W Rehnquist -: --> 3104:InternetArchiveBot 3055:InternetArchiveBot 2877:The article says: 2817:W Rehnquist -: --> 2681:Harvard University 2666:is known (and the 2377:What? Where? When? 2038:with the comment: 1405:William R. Buckley 1349:reminds me of the 172:was nominated for 90:Mathematics portal 34:content assessment 4584: 4575:comment added by 4359: 4284:is not progress. 3988:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 3271: 3239: 3228:. Thanks, — Carl 3167:Washington -: --> 3160:WO Douglas -: --> 3157:DJ Merritt -: --> 3080: 2818:WO Douglas -: --> 2797:DJ Merritt -: --> 2507:comment added by 2451:comment added by 2274:comment added by 2108:Berezovsky number 2032:User:DavidWBrooks 1992:comment added by 1466:this earlier xkcd 1366:comment added by 1324: 1312:comment added by 1149: 889: 877:comment added by 861:(Erdős number 1) 625:comment added by 540: 527:comment added by 258: 246:comment added by 229:at this writing. 208: 207: 155: 154: 151: 150: 147: 146: 4761: 4667: 4661: 4501: 4500: 4498: 4496: 4473: 4353: 4245: 4244: 4242: 4240: 4206: 4010: 3963:: In fact, this 3914: 3904: 3900: 3830: 3828: 3827: 3578: 3577: 3575: 3573: 3539: 3533: 3532: 3526: 3518: 3516: 3514: 3480: 3474: 3473: 3471: 3469: 3455: 3436: 3426: 3422: 3261: 3229: 3156:BF Reskin -: --> 3154:JL Spaeth -: --> 3153:L Epstein -: --> 3152:RA Posner -: --> 3114: 3105: 3078: 3077: 3056: 2796:BF Reskin -: --> 2794:JL Spaeth -: --> 2793:L Epstein -: --> 2792:RA Posner -: --> 2594: 2592: 2591: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2565: 2519: 2463: 2295:Impact vs effect 2286: 2217:reliable sources 2122:Boris Berezovsky 2004: 1837: 1832: 1801:one single strip 1630: 1625: 1453: 1448: 1398:John von Neumann 1378: 1345:The idea of the 1307: 1293:%< snip : --> 1140: 1037:And 0 means you 872: 637: 522: 272: 262: 241: 164: 163: 157: 123: 122: 119: 116: 113: 92: 87: 86: 76: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 4769: 4768: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4739: 4738: 4722: 4665: 4659: 4648: 4566: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4494: 4492: 4475: 4474: 4470: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4238: 4236: 4208: 4207: 4203: 4039:manual of style 4004: 3910: 3898: 3825: 3823: 3821: 3679:manual of style 3677:1) Knowledge's 3583: 3582: 3581: 3571: 3569: 3541: 3540: 3536: 3519: 3512: 3510: 3482: 3481: 3477: 3467: 3465: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3432: 3420: 3409:manual of style 3297: 3295:Scientiometrics 3203: 3164:Clifford -: --> 3123: 3108: 3103: 3071: 3064:have permission 3054: 3028:this simple FaQ 3013: 2993: 2954:121.127.211.147 2945: 2875: 2840: 2765: 2763:Include Posner? 2708: 2660: 2589: 2587: 2585: 2563: 2561: 2559: 2502: 2498: 2446: 2435: 2395:Reliable source 2348: 2297: 2269: 2110: 2029: 1987: 1983: 1942: 1940:Paper-hood-heit 1899:articles - not 1835: 1830: 1628: 1623: 1451: 1446: 1441:should trim. -- 1420: 1400: 1361: 1330: 1256: 1201: 1138:BrownHairedGirl 1098: 1071: 1061: 982: 926: 834: 777: 757:almost everyone 697: 670: 620: 529:203.122.243.160 507: 445:Terry Pratchett 433:, co-author of 331: 304:Talk:Paul Erdos 270: 260: 213: 161: 120: 117: 114: 111: 110: 88: 81: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 4767: 4765: 4757: 4756: 4751: 4741: 4740: 4721: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4697: 4696: 4652:David Eppstein 4647: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4609:Shusaku number 4605: 4565: 4564:Shusaku number 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4526: 4525: 4503: 4502: 4482:Scientometrics 4467: 4466: 4462: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4351: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4282:submarine link 4274: 4247: 4246: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4073: 4051: 4043:knowledge tree 3992:David Eppstein 3961:David Eppstein 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3940:David Eppstein 3932: 3931: 3891: 3887: 3886: 3867:knowledge tree 3857: 3856: 3838: 3837: 3811: 3810: 3794: 3793: 3777: 3776: 3738:Scientometrics 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3715: 3712: 3705: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3689: 3686: 3683:knowledge tree 3672: 3671: 3665: 3647: 3637:David Eppstein 3625: 3624: 3580: 3579: 3534: 3475: 3449: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3405:knowledge tree 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3349:David Eppstein 3321:David Eppstein 3296: 3293: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3260:match. — Carl 3257: 3247:David Eppstein 3202: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3185:David Eppstein 3147: 3146: 3122: 3119: 3098: 3097: 3090: 3043: 3042: 3034:Added archive 3012: 3009: 2992: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2944: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2925:Thank you all. 2920: 2919: 2874: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2839: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2811: 2810: 2764: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2712:Richard Posner 2707: 2704: 2659: 2656: 2654: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2614:David Eppstein 2602: 2601: 2543: 2541: 2540: 2497: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2477: 2434: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2398: 2387: 2380: 2347: 2344: 2296: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2236: 2235: 2225:David Eppstein 2221:self-published 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2130: 2129: 2109: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2092:WolfgangRieger 2071: 2057:WolfgangRieger 2028: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2010:David Eppstein 1994:91.150.223.147 1982: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1967:David Eppstein 1941: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1895:references in 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1860: 1850:David Eppstein 1796: 1737: 1736: 1717: 1716: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1549: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1470:David Eppstein 1439: 1419: 1416: 1403:number of 2? 1399: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1368:81.187.233.172 1329: 1326: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1230: 1229: 1200: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1070: 1067: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1024: 1023: 1018:68.231.149.139 1014: 1005: 997: 981: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 934:Emiellaiendiay 925: 922: 921: 920: 893: 892: 891: 890: 866: 865: 833: 830: 829: 819: 808: 807: 806: 786: 785: 776: 773: 772: 771: 752: 751: 737: 736: 696: 693: 692: 691: 669: 666: 655:David Eppstein 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 578: 577: 576: 575: 563: 562: 561: 560: 542: 541: 520: 506: 503: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 421: 408: 407: 383: 382: 381: 380: 368: 367: 366: 365: 330: 327: 326: 325: 319: 296: 295: 294: 279: 237: 236: 212: 209: 206: 205: 180:was closed on 178:The discussion 169:Shusaku number 165: 153: 152: 149: 148: 145: 144: 133: 127: 126: 124: 107:the discussion 94: 93: 77: 65: 64: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4766: 4755: 4752: 4750: 4747: 4746: 4744: 4737: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4719: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4664: 4657: 4653: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4610: 4606: 4604: 4600: 4596: 4591: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4563: 4557: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4536: 4532: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4507: 4491: 4487: 4484:. pp. 59–70. 4483: 4479: 4472: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4410: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4357: 4356:edit conflict 4352: 4350: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4319: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4235: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4205: 4202: 4198: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4162: 4158: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4131: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4074: 4071: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4008: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3966: 3962: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3913: 3908: 3903: 3896: 3892: 3889: 3888: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3859: 3858: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3840: 3839: 3836: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3816: 3813: 3812: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3796: 3795: 3792: 3789: 3786: 3782: 3779: 3778: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3746: 3744: 3742: 3739: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3718:reconsider.-- 3716: 3713: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3702: 3701: 3694: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3669: 3666: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3651: 3648: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3627: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3602: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3568: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3538: 3535: 3530: 3524: 3509: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3479: 3476: 3464: 3460: 3454: 3451: 3447: 3440: 3435: 3430: 3425: 3418: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3410: 3406: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3364:bibliometrics 3360: 3359: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3294: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3274: 3269: 3265: 3258: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3237: 3233: 3227: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3211:Ralf Muschall 3208: 3200: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3165:Catron -: --> 3163:Harlan -: --> 3162:Holmes -: --> 3149: 3148: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3120: 3118: 3117: 3112: 3107: 3106: 3095: 3091: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3075: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3051: 3046: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3016: 3010: 3008: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2950: 2942: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2927:78.15.171.134 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2894:78.15.171.134 2890: 2887: 2884: 2880: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2844:78.15.171.134 2838:possible spam 2837: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2762: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2657: 2655: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2569: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2509:72.230.174.36 2506: 2496:Misha Collins 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2478: 2476: 2473: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2444: 2440: 2432: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417:178.37.53.107 2413: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2345: 2343: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2317: 2315: 2310: 2304: 2302: 2294: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276:71.105.34.180 2273: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2244:ArthurTheKing 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182:ArthurTheKing 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2156: 2153: 2148: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2135: 2127: 2126:See this ref. 2123: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2107: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2073:Did you read 2072: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2048: 2046: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1947: 1939: 1935: 1932: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1904: 1902: 1901:every mention 1898: 1894: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1833: 1828: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1797: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1770:articles.) - 1768: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1634: 1631: 1626: 1621: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1460:I think both 1459: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1449: 1444: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1417: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1358: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1340: 1335: 1327: 1325: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314:202.89.169.22 1311: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287:eBay auctions 1282: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1262: 1261: 1253: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1198: 1194: 1191: 1186: 1185: 1178: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1163: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1119: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1095: 1091: 1088: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1077: 1068: 1066: 1065: 1058: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1031: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1013: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 995: 991: 990: 989: 986: 979: 971: 967: 963: 962:82.131.157.68 959: 958: 957: 954: 950: 949: 948: 945: 941: 940: 939: 938: 935: 931: 924:Pronunciation 923: 919: 915: 911: 910:PaulTanenbaum 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 888: 884: 880: 879:134.96.105.72 876: 870: 869: 868: 867: 864: 860: 856: 854: 849: 848: 847: 846: 842: 838: 831: 828: 827: 824: 818: 817: 814: 805: 802: 798: 797: 796: 795: 792: 782: 781: 780: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 753: 750: 747: 743: 739: 738: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 710: 709: 708: 706: 703: 695:Average of 5? 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 667: 665: 664: 660: 656: 652: 636: 632: 628: 627:63.246.160.61 624: 618: 617: 616: 613: 609: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 591: 588: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 574: 571: 567: 566: 565: 564: 559: 555: 551: 546: 545: 544: 543: 538: 534: 530: 526: 521: 518: 517: 516: 515: 512: 504: 502: 501: 497: 493: 488: 484: 483:Erdős numbers 479: 478: 474: 470: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 437: 432: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 419: 416: 412: 405: 402: 397: 393: 389: 385: 384: 379: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 364: 361: 357: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 345: 341: 337: 328: 323: 320: 317: 316: 315: 313: 309: 305: 301: 292: 291: 290: 288: 284: 278: 276: 268: 266: 257: 253: 249: 245: 235: 232: 228: 224: 223: 222: 221: 218: 210: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 170: 166: 159: 158: 142: 138: 132: 129: 128: 125: 108: 104: 100: 99: 91: 85: 80: 78: 75: 71: 70: 66: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 4723: 4686:DavidWBrooks 4649: 4627: 4623: 4571:— Preceding 4567: 4548:DavidWBrooks 4527: 4493:. Retrieved 4481: 4471: 4463: 4448: 4393: 4323:WP:SUBMARINE 4318:WP:SUBMARINE 4277: 4237:. Retrieved 4221:(1): 49–53. 4218: 4214: 4204: 4196: 4135:WP:SUBMARINE 4130:WP:SUBMARINE 4127: 4096: 4092: 4047:WP:SUBMARINE 4035:WP:TECHNICAL 4016: 4012: 3990:territory. — 3984:WP:SUBMARINE 3964: 3895:Erdős number 3894: 3846:DavidWBrooks 3841: 3819: 3818: 3814: 3780: 3737: 3734: 3693:WP:TECHNICAL 3667: 3649: 3633:WP:TECHNICAL 3628: 3600: 3584: 3570:. Retrieved 3554:(1): 49–53. 3551: 3547: 3537: 3523:cite journal 3511:. Retrieved 3492: 3488: 3478: 3466:. Retrieved 3462: 3453: 3445: 3417:Erdős number 3416: 3402: 3300: 3298: 3279: 3204: 3166:Story -: --> 3124: 3102: 3099: 3074:source check 3053: 3047: 3044: 3020:Erdős number 3017: 3014: 2994: 2947:Link see - 2946: 2891: 2888: 2882: 2878: 2876: 2841: 2766: 2732:DavidWBrooks 2709: 2689:Erdős Number 2668:Bacon Number 2664:Erdős Number 2661: 2653: 2637:DavidWBrooks 2583: 2582: 2564:<ref: --> 2560:Cite error: 2542: 2530:DavidWBrooks 2503:— Preceding 2500: 2499: 2453:66.66.65.201 2447:— Preceding 2442: 2438: 2436: 2375:The article 2357: 2349: 2324: 2322: 2319: 2313: 2308: 2306: 2298: 2270:— Preceding 2199: 2196: 2160:wp:consensus 2157: 2149: 2138: 2131: 2111: 2077:DavidWBrooks 2049: 2045:Erdős number 2039: 2030: 1984: 1950: 1943: 1923: 1909:DavidWBrooks 1905: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1890: 1817: 1800: 1772:DavidWBrooks 1743: 1554:DavidWBrooks 1493:DavidWBrooks 1421: 1418:xkcd mention 1401: 1384:DavidWBrooks 1359: 1347:Erdős number 1344: 1339:Erdős number 1331: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1284: 1283: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1266: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1257: 1214:Pete St.John 1208: 1204: 1202: 1162:Pete St.John 1156: 1128:Pete St.John 1107:Pete St.John 1099: 1087:Pete St.John 1072: 1062: 1043:116.14.72.74 1038: 1030:Pete St.John 1009:Pete St.John 1000: 987: 983: 953:85.211.4.226 927: 905: 901: 897: 852: 843: 839: 835: 820: 809: 787: 778: 761:78.50.93.184 755:By the way, 726:Pete St.John 721: 717: 713: 698: 671: 648: 621:— Preceding 508: 480: 465: 440: 434: 420: 409: 401:Paul August 395: 392:Brian Greene 387: 355: 340:Bacon number 336:Brian Greene 332: 308:Erdos number 297: 280: 269: 238: 231:Pete St.John 214: 194:Erdős number 185: 181: 167: 137:Mid-priority 136: 96: 62:Mid‑priority 40:WikiProjects 4670:DecafPotato 4531:Wikiman2718 4451:Wikiman2718 4406:Paul August 4380:Wikiman2718 4327:Wikiman2718 4215:SIGIR Forum 4181:Wikiman2718 4143:Wikiman2718 4101:Wikiman2718 4056:Wikiman2718 4013:five or six 4007:Wikiman2718 3970:Wikiman2718 3938:consensus.— 3921:Wikiman2718 3876:Wikiman2718 3800:Wikiman2718 3785:Paul August 3720:Wikiman2718 3655:LouScheffer 3587:Wikiman2718 3548:SIGIR Forum 3368:Wikiman2718 3335:Wikiman2718 3305:Wikiman2718 3171:LouScheffer 3136:LouScheffer 2977:Sundayclose 2822:LouScheffer 2800:LouScheffer 2774:LouScheffer 2747:LouScheffer 2469:Paul August 2333:LouScheffer 1988:—Preceding 1928:Paul August 1818:AEEEEIIIIGH 1362:—Preceding 1308:—Preceding 1103:a talk page 873:—Preceding 823:Hugo Dufort 550:64.3.210.50 523:—Preceding 469:64.3.210.50 431:Ian Stewart 242:—Preceding 198:its history 182:25 May 2011 112:Mathematics 103:mathematics 59:Mathematics 4743:Categories 4529:dispute.-- 4509:Yes, I've 4464:References 4422:XOR'easter 4341:XOR'easter 4286:XOR'easter 4264:XOR'easter 4197:References 4166:XOR'easter 4050:principle. 4017:repeatedly 3912:Paul Erdős 3899:Hungarian: 3766:XOR'easter 3614:XOR'easter 3446:References 3434:Paul Erdős 3421:Hungarian: 3382:Bellagio99 3111:Report bug 2716:Bellagio99 2693:24.55.4.38 2672:Paul Erdős 2610:MathSciNet 2562:There are 2358:variations 2316:study: --> 2202:Trafford09 2164:Trafford09 1822:notability 1424:Evanturner 1334:Paul Erdős 1190:Ramsey2006 1076:Spurgistan 994:Paul Erdos 675:CanadaGirl 612:Ramsey2006 587:70.55.69.5 375:Ramsey2006 360:Ramsey2006 300:Paul Erdos 271:ö 261:ö 4656:MOS:IDIOM 4234:0163-5840 3863:guideline 3691:3) While 3567:0163-5840 3508:1932-6203 3205:The site 3094:this tool 3087:this tool 2883:necessary 2568:help page 2152:wp:censor 2141:arXiv.org 2034:reverted 1864:WP:TRIVIA 1682:Jredwards 1462:WP:TRIVIA 1224:Roger Hui 799:Agreed. 689:Saforrest 449:Daibhid C 344:MarkSweep 322:Urhixidur 312:Saforrest 248:24.91.5.2 4573:unsigned 4402:WP:UNDUE 3696:article. 3489:PLoS ONE 3282:Turtlens 3100:Cheers.— 2505:unsigned 2449:unsigned 2433:Spelling 2402:Quiddity 2362:Androniq 2272:unsigned 1990:unsigned 1846:WP:UNDUE 1786:Mintrick 1706:Mintrick 1364:unsigned 1310:unsigned 1209:monotone 1174:Billlion 1146:contribs 944:Stevvers 898:arguendo 875:unsigned 784:authors. 718:infinity 714:infinity 685:this guy 623:unsigned 537:contribs 525:unsigned 511:Army1987 244:unsigned 217:Kbdank71 174:deletion 4663:clarify 4394:opposed 4011:So far 3907:measure 3905:) is a 3740:; e.g. 3668:Support 3427:) is a 3024:my edit 2685:Florida 2027:cartoon 1952:Chippo1 1726:Quaeler 1652:Quaeler 1589:Quaeler 1520:Quaeler 1355:cricket 1332:On the 1238:Sillcat 1074:again) 570:h2g2bob 568:Rats -- 267:page. 139:on the 30:B-class 4727:Pol098 4704:Pol098 4495:21 May 4418:WP:DUE 4398:WP:EGG 4239:20 May 3871:boldly 3842:Oppose 3815:Oppose 3781:Oppose 3650:Oppose 3629:Oppose 3601:Oppose 3572:20 May 3513:20 May 3468:20 May 2998:Loraof 2547:AODLLM 2325:impact 2314:impact 2309:impact 1281:; and 1142:(talk) 746:Aleph4 651:WP:OWN 492:Zaslav 275:Aleph4 265:Umlaut 190:merged 36:scale. 3495:(2). 2969:WP:RS 2482:McKay 2443:Erdős 2439:Erdös 2145:wp:RS 2134:wp:ES 1438:home. 1157:group 1001:isn't 902:Every 859:McKay 845:Kevin 801:McKay 608:McKay 396:could 318:Done. 192:into 186:merge 4731:talk 4708:talk 4690:talk 4674:talk 4636:talk 4624:best 4616:this 4599:talk 4581:talk 4552:talk 4535:talk 4519:talk 4497:2019 4455:talk 4426:talk 4384:talk 4378:. -- 4366:talk 4345:talk 4331:talk 4290:talk 4278:over 4268:talk 4241:2019 4231:ISSN 4185:talk 4170:talk 4147:talk 4141:. -- 4105:talk 4082:talk 4060:talk 4045:. 4) 4025:talk 3996:talk 3974:talk 3944:talk 3925:talk 3893:The 3880:talk 3850:talk 3822:♦Ian 3804:talk 3770:talk 3755:talk 3724:talk 3659:talk 3641:talk 3618:talk 3591:talk 3574:2019 3564:ISSN 3529:link 3515:2019 3505:ISSN 3470:2019 3415:The 3386:talk 3372:talk 3353:talk 3339:talk 3325:talk 3309:talk 3286:talk 3268:talk 3251:talk 3236:talk 3215:talk 3189:talk 3175:talk 3140:talk 3002:talk 2981:talk 2973:WP:V 2971:and 2958:talk 2931:talk 2913:talk 2898:talk 2863:talk 2848:talk 2826:talk 2804:talk 2778:talk 2751:talk 2736:talk 2720:talk 2697:talk 2662:The 2641:talk 2618:talk 2586:♦Ian 2551:talk 2534:talk 2513:talk 2486:talk 2457:talk 2441:NOT 2421:talk 2406:talk 2366:talk 2337:talk 2280:talk 2248:talk 2229:talk 2206:talk 2186:talk 2168:talk 2096:talk 2081:talk 2061:talk 2036:this 2025:xkcd 2014:talk 1998:talk 1971:talk 1956:talk 1946:NPOV 1913:talk 1897:some 1893:some 1872:talk 1868:Mdwh 1854:talk 1809:talk 1805:Mdwh 1790:talk 1776:talk 1761:talk 1757:Mdwh 1753:XKCD 1749:wood 1730:talk 1710:talk 1686:talk 1656:talk 1593:talk 1558:talk 1524:talk 1497:talk 1474:talk 1464:and 1428:talk 1409:talk 1388:talk 1372:talk 1318:talk 1260:viz: 1242:talk 1118:meco 1047:talk 980:why? 966:talk 914:talk 906:that 883:talk 813:Awis 765:talk 740:The 730:talk 702:Cj67 687:. -- 659:talk 631:talk 554:talk 533:talk 496:talk 473:talk 453:talk 310:. -- 287:Zero 252:talk 202:here 4632:JBL 4595:JBL 4515:JBL 4486:doi 4362:JBL 4223:doi 4078:JBL 4021:JBL 3751:JBL 3556:doi 3497:doi 3264:CBM 3232:CBM 3068:RfC 3038:to 2909:JBL 2859:JBL 2679:of 2147:. 1948:.) 1827:Kiz 1620:Kiz 1443:Kiz 1144:• ( 1039:are 930:IPA 791:SJK 441:any 176:. 131:Mid 4745:: 4733:) 4710:) 4692:) 4676:) 4666:}} 4660:{{ 4638:) 4611:: 4601:) 4593:-- 4583:) 4554:) 4537:) 4521:) 4480:. 4457:) 4428:) 4400:, 4386:) 4368:) 4347:) 4333:) 4292:) 4270:) 4262:. 4229:. 4219:37 4217:. 4213:. 4187:) 4179:-- 4172:) 4149:) 4107:) 4084:) 4076:-- 4062:) 4027:) 3998:) 3976:) 3965:is 3946:) 3927:) 3882:) 3852:) 3829:M♦ 3824:Ma 3806:) 3798:-- 3772:) 3757:) 3726:) 3661:) 3643:) 3620:) 3593:) 3562:. 3552:37 3550:. 3546:. 3525:}} 3521:{{ 3503:. 3491:. 3487:. 3461:. 3411:: 3388:) 3374:) 3355:) 3341:) 3327:) 3311:) 3288:) 3266:· 3253:) 3234:· 3217:) 3191:) 3177:) 3142:) 3081:. 3076:}} 3072:{{ 3004:) 2983:) 2975:. 2960:) 2933:) 2915:) 2900:) 2865:) 2850:) 2828:) 2806:) 2780:) 2753:) 2738:) 2722:) 2699:) 2643:) 2620:) 2593:M♦ 2588:Ma 2570:). 2553:) 2536:) 2528:- 2515:) 2488:) 2459:) 2423:) 2408:) 2368:) 2339:) 2331:. 2282:) 2250:) 2231:) 2208:) 2188:) 2170:) 2128:". 2098:) 2083:) 2063:) 2016:) 2000:) 1973:) 1958:) 1915:) 1874:) 1856:) 1825:-- 1811:) 1792:) 1778:) 1763:) 1732:) 1724:. 1712:) 1688:) 1658:) 1618:-- 1595:) 1560:) 1526:) 1499:) 1476:) 1430:) 1411:) 1390:) 1374:) 1320:) 1244:) 1136:-- 1049:) 968:) 916:) 885:) 811:-- 767:) 732:) 707:) 661:) 633:) 556:) 539:) 535:• 498:) 475:) 455:) 388:is 254:) 4729:( 4706:( 4688:( 4672:( 4650:@ 4634:( 4597:( 4579:( 4550:( 4533:( 4517:( 4499:. 4488:: 4453:( 4424:( 4409:☎ 4382:( 4364:( 4358:) 4354:( 4343:( 4329:( 4288:( 4266:( 4243:. 4225:: 4183:( 4168:( 4145:( 4103:( 4080:( 4058:( 4023:( 4009:: 4005:@ 3994:( 3972:( 3942:( 3923:( 3897:( 3878:( 3848:( 3826:c 3802:( 3788:☎ 3768:( 3753:( 3722:( 3657:( 3639:( 3616:( 3589:( 3576:. 3558:: 3531:) 3517:. 3499:: 3493:8 3472:. 3419:( 3384:( 3370:( 3351:( 3337:( 3323:( 3319:— 3307:( 3284:( 3270:) 3262:( 3249:( 3238:) 3230:( 3213:( 3187:( 3173:( 3138:( 3113:) 3109:( 3096:. 3089:. 3000:( 2979:( 2956:( 2929:( 2911:( 2896:( 2861:( 2846:( 2824:( 2802:( 2776:( 2749:( 2734:( 2718:( 2695:( 2639:( 2616:( 2590:c 2549:( 2532:( 2511:( 2484:( 2472:☎ 2455:( 2419:( 2404:( 2386:. 2364:( 2335:( 2278:( 2246:( 2227:( 2204:( 2184:( 2166:( 2116:" 2094:( 2079:( 2059:( 2012:( 1996:( 1969:( 1954:( 1931:☎ 1911:( 1870:( 1852:( 1836:r 1831:o 1807:( 1788:( 1774:( 1759:( 1728:( 1708:( 1684:( 1654:( 1629:r 1624:o 1591:( 1556:( 1522:( 1495:( 1472:( 1452:r 1447:o 1426:( 1407:( 1386:( 1370:( 1316:( 1294:% 1285:" 1265:" 1240:( 1148:) 1045:( 964:( 912:( 881:( 763:( 728:( 657:( 629:( 552:( 531:( 494:( 471:( 451:( 404:☎ 250:( 204:. 143:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index