charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca
<liste(a)dapyx.com> wrote:
> Should we have a category which says that the subject of the
> article (a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician
> who collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
> with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
> mathematician Paul Erd?s?
>
> Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.
>
>
False the existance of a category does not mean that we should have
articles on everything that could fall within that category.
That's a misapprehension of what this is about.
I'd have voted for deletion myself. This is about as pop-cultural as
mathmos get (I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced
with the Prince of Wales).
Not so. It's a lot like actor's Bacon numbers: Meeting someone is one
thing, but co-author a mathematical paper or acting alongside them is
slightly less trivial than that.
It's important to put the emphasis on the word "slightly" in that
last
comment. I have a priestly cousin who likes to hand out pictures of
himself shaking hands with the late pope. He gave me one of those
pictures. This would give me a degree of separation from JP2 of 2.
Speaking as a person who usually favours inclusionist policies, could we
consolidate these templates into one about degrees of triviality?
Ec