3 ms·
No. Are YOU kidding? Here it is the list of Erdos papers: https://users.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/Erdos.html https://users.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/Erdos.html Please list w
by cambalache 6y ago
No. Are YOU kidding?
Here it is the list of Erdos papers:
https://users.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/Erdos.html https://users.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/Erdos.html
Please list which papers would you put at the same level of the work of Grothendieck, Poincare, Cartan, Banach, Kolmogorov, Goedel, Schwartz, Perelman or Tao?
Wikipedia explains it better than me:
" Erdős was one of the most prolific publishers of papers in mathematical history, comparable only with Leonhard Euler; Erdős published more papers, mostly in collaboration with other mathematicians, while Euler published more pages, mostly by himself.[37] Erdős wrote around 1,525 mathematical articles in his lifetime,[38] mostly with co-authors. He strongly believed in and practiced mathematics as a social activity,[39] having 511 different collaborators in his lifetime.[40]
In his mathematical style, Erdős was much more of a "problem solver" than a "theory developer" (see "The Two Cultures of Mathematics"[41] by Timothy Gowers for an in-depth discussion of the two styles, and why problem solvers are perhaps less appreciated). Joel Spencer states that "his place in the 20th-century mathematical pantheon is a matter of some controversy because he resolutely concentrated on particular theorems and conjectures throughout his illustrious career."[42] Erdős never won the highest mathematical prize, the Fields Medal, nor did he coauthor a paper with anyone who did,[43] a pattern that extends to other prizes.[44] He did win the Wolf Prize, where his contribution is described as "for his numerous contributions to number theory, combinatorics, probability, set theory and mathematical analysis, and for personally stimulating mathematicians the world over".[45] In contrast, the works of the three winners after were recognized as "outstanding", "classic", and "profound", and the three before as "fundamental" or "seminal". "
- pmiller2 6y agoYou seem to have an extremely high standard for what isn't of "very limited quality," if one has to aspire to the level of Grothendieck, Goedel, etc.. I've just barely skimmed the first few years and found several serviceable papers -- not terrible, not great, just average stuff like people would publish today. But, since you asked, here's one of excellent quality: https://users.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1949-03.pdf https://users.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1949-03.pdf
- cambalache 6y agoThe original article compared Erdos to Euler. They are comparable only in sheer number of publications. Erdos was a nice and eccentric fellow and a competent mathematician who liked to solve specific problems with other colleagues . Erdos is not in the same universe of not only Euler but of any Fields medal winner. His made claim to fame is his "number", but so is Kevin Bacon's.
- pmiller2 6y agoWho was comparing him to any Fields medal winner? You said his papers were of "very limited quality." That's what I'm saying is untrue. That isn't to say there aren't some stinkers in the mix. Anyone who publishes 1500+ papers is going to have some stinkers. But, "very limited quality" as a general assessment is way, way off the mark, IMO. Yes, Erdos and Euler are not really comparable, but that's mostly the effect of 250 years and a lot of drugs, IMO. :P