3 ms·

But no one, not a single person in history, has published more papers in mathematics than Erdos. Only a single person can have claimed to have published more pa

But no one, not a single person in history, has published more papers in mathematics than Erdos. Only a single person can have claimed to have published more pages than he, and that's Euler. I think its worth recognizing that his regiment of drugs likely increased, at the very least, the volume of his output.

jeffcoat 16y ago
[Wikipedia quote] His colleague Alfréd Rényi said, "a mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems", and Erdős drank copious quantities. (This quotation is often attributed incorrectly to Erdős himself.)[7] After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month.[8] Erdős won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit. [/quote] (I remember the story from his biography, but Wikipedia has the copy-and-paste advantage.)
Confusion 16y ago
However, one may wonder about the average quality of the papers. If he had laid of the drugs, he might have produced just the top 10% of the papers that he wrote under influence. One could argue that would actually have been a better result.
- fragmede 16y ago
  That depends on your opinion of his work. Did the bottom 10% of his papers (under the influence) move the field of mathematics forwards? Perhaps. Did the bottom 90% of his papers move math forwards? I'd argue yes.
  - WilliamLP 16y ago
    If productivity is measured by Erdos number, they moved math forward immensely.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
dkersten 16y ago
What if without the drugs he would have produced more and/or higher quality results? His contribution to mathematics might have been greater still. We don't know that he did as well as he did because of the drugs instead of in spite of the drugs.
- volodia 16y ago
  after he stopped using them, he reportedly had difficulty coming up with 'new mathematical ideas' (see comments in 1st thread for the full quote)
  - dkersten 16y ago
    Yes, but from what I read, he only stopped for a month. After using drugs for a long time, there is a significant come-down period and a month seems much much too short a time to be able to accurately compare. Its to be expected that everything feels duller or slower and that you feel less excited, less creative, less motivated and less focused after coming off drugs. So it makes sense that he would have had difficulty coming up with new mathematical ideas when he stopped. Id like to know if this would still be the case after six months or a year of not taking drugs.

jeffcoat 16y ago

[Wikipedia quote] His colleague Alfréd Rényi said, "a mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems", and Erdős drank copious quantities. (This quotation is often attributed incorrectly to Erdős himself.)[7] After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month.[8] Erdős won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit. [/quote] (I remember the story from his biography, but Wikipedia has the copy-and-paste advantage.)

Confusion 16y ago

However, one may wonder about the average quality of the papers. If he had laid of the drugs, he might have produced just the top 10% of the papers that he wrote under influence. One could argue that would actually have been a better result.

fragmede 16y ago
That depends on your opinion of his work. Did the bottom 10% of his papers (under the influence) move the field of mathematics forwards? Perhaps. Did the bottom 90% of his papers move math forwards? I'd argue yes.
- WilliamLP 16y ago
  If productivity is measured by Erdos number, they moved math forward immensely.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

dkersten 16y ago

What if without the drugs he would have produced more and/or higher quality results? His contribution to mathematics might have been greater still. We don't know that he did as well as he did because of the drugs instead of in spite of the drugs.

volodia 16y ago
after he stopped using them, he reportedly had difficulty coming up with 'new mathematical ideas' (see comments in 1st thread for the full quote)
- dkersten 16y ago
  Yes, but from what I read, he only stopped for a month. After using drugs for a long time, there is a significant come-down period and a month seems much much too short a time to be able to accurately compare. Its to be expected that everything feels duller or slower and that you feel less excited, less creative, less motivated and less focused after coming off drugs. So it makes sense that he would have had difficulty coming up with new mathematical ideas when he stopped. Id like to know if this would still be the case after six months or a year of not taking drugs.