geni wrote
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@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).
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@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.
On 10/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I think the equivalence with the Kevin Bacon "degrees of separation" is a good one, but I don't think it speaks for its lack of triviality. I don't think we should start categorizing actors by their degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon, either, and I don't think we should categorize people based on their degrees of publication separation from Paul Erdos.
FF
On 10/14/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I think the equivalence with the Kevin Bacon "degrees of separation" is a good one, but I don't think it speaks for its lack of triviality. I don't think we should start categorizing actors by their degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon, either, and I don't think we should categorize people based on their degrees of publication separation from Paul Erdos.
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's fundamentally trivial (in nature), however it's also excessively popular, in the sense that any serious mathematician seems to know their Erdos number. It's not a focus of serious discussion, but it's part of the field's internal folklore.
I think that they're so well known and so common that they are simply too notable not to have articles about, even though they're trivial.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@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
On 10/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
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?
Does everyone in your profession have a "Papal Number", talk about it sometimes over beer, and sometimes put it in resumes?
Does everyone in your profession have a "Papal Number", talk about it sometimes over beer, and sometimes put it in resumes?
No.
Does the Erdos number matter to any sorts of decisions or evaluations in mathematics? That is, is a mathematician defined by his Erdos number in any way? Nobody is disputing that [[Erdos number]] should exist... just whether it's a useful way to classify mathematicians in an encyclopedia.
-Phil
Monday, October 16, 2006, 12:40:59 AM, Phil wrote:
Does everyone in your profession have a "Papal Number", talk about it sometimes over beer, and sometimes put it in resumes?
No.
Does the Erdos number matter to any sorts of decisions or evaluations in mathematics? That is, is a mathematician defined by his Erdos number in any way? Nobody is disputing that [[Erdos number]] should exist... just whether it's a useful way to classify mathematicians in an encyclopedia.
If you know someone's Erdos number, you know exactly his Erdos number. Nothing more.
Nobody goes looking in categories after people with "Erdos number 3", so there's no point in having a category.
There's no real corelation between the Erdos number and the notability or influence of a person. People who have published papers with many collaborators and people who work in the same fields as Erdos have more chances of having a lower number, but that's all.
There are thousands of non-notable mathematicians having numbers 1 and 2, while Alan Turing (one of the greatest mathematicians of the century) has Erdos number 5 and Paul Dirac has number 4.
Mathematicians seem to like this piece of trivia because it makes them feel like they belong in a community. And since the CfD is a "popularity contest", not a debate, the categories were kept, despite all the arguments brought.
Huh. Just because one can't think of a reason that it would be of interest to have a list of mathematicians of Erdos Number 3 doesn't mean that noone can. Wikipedia ain't paper.
On 10/15/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Monday, October 16, 2006, 12:40:59 AM, Phil wrote:
Does everyone in your profession have a "Papal Number", talk about it sometimes over beer, and sometimes put it in resumes?
No.
Does the Erdos number matter to any sorts of decisions or evaluations in mathematics? That is, is a mathematician defined by his Erdos number in any way? Nobody is disputing that [[Erdos number]] should exist... just whether it's a useful way to classify mathematicians in an encyclopedia.
If you know someone's Erdos number, you know exactly his Erdos number. Nothing more.
Nobody goes looking in categories after people with "Erdos number 3", so there's no point in having a category.
There's no real corelation between the Erdos number and the notability or influence of a person. People who have published papers with many collaborators and people who work in the same fields as Erdos have more chances of having a lower number, but that's all.
There are thousands of non-notable mathematicians having numbers 1 and 2, while Alan Turing (one of the greatest mathematicians of the century) has Erdos number 5 and Paul Dirac has number 4.
Mathematicians seem to like this piece of trivia because it makes them feel like they belong in a community. And since the CfD is a "popularity contest", not a debate, the categories were kept, despite all the arguments brought.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@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
I think comparisons to things like this or "dancing with XXX" or "having meet YYY" are not accurate. This is a verifiable part of the mathematical subculture. Just because it is not (aside form the calculation) mathematical in nature does not mean that it does not say a lot about that sub-culture.
I have mixed feelings about the categories, but I think it is a significant and notable thing to include. This is probably a good compromise, as putting such things in the article itself (even in a box) would be I think giving it too much significance.
I like to think of categories in terms of "would someone ever be interested in finding articles with this". In this case I think the answer is with out a doubt yes.
SKL