Weird Ways to Improve Your Erdős Number
Many years ago, I wrote a blog post about an amusing fact: John Conway put Moscow, the former capital of the USSR, as a coauthor: A Math Paper by Moscow, USSR. Thus, Moscow got an Erdős number 2, thanks to Conway’s Erdős number 1. At that time, my Erdős number was 4, so I wondered if I should try coauthoring a paper with Moscow, my former city of birth, to improve my Erdős number.
This weird idea didn’t materialize. Meanwhile, my Erdős number became 2 after coauthoring a paper with Richard Guy, Conway’s Subprime Fibonacci Sequences. I relaxed and forgot all about my Erdős status. I couldn’t do better anyway, or could I?
I recently heard about a cheater who applied to grad schools. In addition to a bunch of fabricated grades, the cheater submitted an arXiv link to a phony paper. What is fascinating to me is that the cheater put real professors’ names from the university the cheater supposedly attended as coauthors. The professors hadn’t heard of this student and had no clue about the paper. So the cheater added fake coauthors to add legitimacy to their application and boost the perceived value of the cheater’s “research”. As a consequence, the cheater got a fake Erdős number.
I hope that the arXiv withdrew the paper. Cheating is the wrong way to improve one’s Erdős number.
But here is another story. Robert Wayne Thomason named as coauthor his dead friend, Thomas Trobaugh. The paper in question is Higher Algebraic K-Theory of Schemes and of Derived Categories and can be found at https://www.gwern.net/docs/math/1990-thomason.pdf. This paragraph in the paper’s introduction explains the situation.
The first author [Robert Wayne Thomason] must state that his coauthor and close friend, Tom Trobaugh, quite intelligent, singularly original, and inordinately generous, killed himself consequent to endogenous depression. Ninety-four days later, in my dream, Tom’s simulacrum remarked, “The direct limit characterization of perfect complexes shows that they extend, just as one extends a coherent sheaf.” Awaking with a start, I knew this idea had to be wrong, since some perfect complexes have a non-vanishing K0 obstruction to extension. I had worked on this problem for 3 years, and saw this approach to be hopeless. But Tom’s simulacrum had been so insistent, I knew he wouldn’t let me sleep undisturbed until I had worked out the argument and could point to the gap. This work quickly led to the key results of this paper.
This precedent gives anyone hope that they might achieve an Erdős number 1. You just need to wait for Paul Erdős to come to you in your dreams with a genius idea.
Share:
JBL:
Unfortunately, my most recent approach to shrinking my Erdos number (having you coauthor an article with Richard Guy) is not repeatable unless you are going to try one of these more exotic methods yourself.
29 March 2022, 8:36 pmOscar Cunningham:
There’s also the lazy method: wait for your coauthors to improve their Erdős numbers!
30 March 2022, 6:17 amtanyakh:
Thanks, JBL, you made me laugh.
30 March 2022, 10:27 amHow to get a high Erdös Number – The nth Root:
[…] This weird idea didn’t materialize. Meanwhile, my Erdős number became 2 after coauthoring a paper with Richard Guy, Conway’s Subprime Fibonacci Sequences. I relaxed and forgot all about my Erdős status. I couldn’t do better anyway, or could I? … (Tanya Khovanova’s Blog) […]
30 March 2022, 7:00 pmJBL:
🙂
1 April 2022, 7:23 pmPoppi Tunner:
This is an amazing blog and I found it very informative. You have done a great job
7 April 2022, 5:15 amand keep writing such wonderful articles. To get more information about how many ounces are in one fourth of a cup then
Please click here:
https://howtodiscuss.com/t/how-many-ounces-in-a-quarter-cup/14700