4 ms·
You 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
by pmiller2 6y ago
You 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