ClassIntellectual
Founding member
Mathematicians have developed the idea of an "Erdos number" (Erdos roughly pronounced 'air-dish'), named after the great number theorist Paul Erdos. He was by far the most prolific publisher of mathematical papers, with over 1500 citations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős) Basically, Erdos' "Erdos number" is 0, since he is himself, naturally, and anyone who published a paper with Erdos as coauthor has an "Erdos number" of 1, and anyone who has published a paper with those of "Erdos number" 1 has an "Erdos number" of 2, and so and so forth. This site keeps track of all "Erdos numbers" of currently published mathematicians (http://www.oakland.edu/enp/) (and unfortunately, since Erdos died in 1996, the best number one can attain these days is 2. if you want to know more about Erdos, read his great biography "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers," by Paul Hoffman).
This seems kinda geeky, but is anyone curious about developing the concept of "Bukowski numbers"? Buk gets 0, of course. Those who published in a journal with him during his lifetime get a 1, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, poetry is quite different from mathematics, in that a poetry journal might feature a wide sample of poets writing in different styles and on different topics, whereas a mathematical paper focuses on a specific topic. Also, poets can be published posthumously without much difference, whereas a posthumous math paper sounds kinda funny.
Thoughts?
This seems kinda geeky, but is anyone curious about developing the concept of "Bukowski numbers"? Buk gets 0, of course. Those who published in a journal with him during his lifetime get a 1, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, poetry is quite different from mathematics, in that a poetry journal might feature a wide sample of poets writing in different styles and on different topics, whereas a mathematical paper focuses on a specific topic. Also, poets can be published posthumously without much difference, whereas a posthumous math paper sounds kinda funny.
Thoughts?
