Thrun's page seems to have an error about Leibniz: "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1966, 1967, 1976"
It would be nice to be able to trace figures like al-Tusi back to Plato and Imhotep, to know if there really was an unbroken line of personal mentorship the way there is in the Buddhist lineages, or if at some point the oral line was severed. Perhaps during the Roman rampages through Greece, the line of transmission of philosophy only survived in Alexandria, or less plausibly, somewhere in India, only to resurface in Arabia while Europe was sunken into its Dark Ages. Or perhaps it had to be recovered from the few manuscripts the Christians hadn't yet recycled into hymnals, like the Archimedes Palimpsest.
We know that somewhere between Eudoxus and Galileo the idea of freely postulated axiom systems was lost, and it was not really fully rediscovered until the 19th century.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_d%27Estouteville
But it does seem very unlikely that we could trace it, given how little written material survives from that period in India.
Our (Episcopal) parish used to have a small framed "genealogy" that purported to trace our diocesan bishop's consecration lineage back to St. Peter. I was always a bit skeptical.
Tangent: Some Roman Catholics would flatly deny the validity of any Anglican ordinations post-Henry VIII ....
I assume the 19th century rediscovery you refer to was Boole, Hamilton et al and their work in logic and the beginnings of abstract algebra.
Thank you for preparing for the Y10K problem.
here is one for neuroscience: https://neurotree.org/neurotree/
Maybe one student having more than one advisor? If that's the case, usually it's just a thesis committee or reviewer or something, and not really multiple _main_ advisors
Having a junior and a senior advisor is fairly common. Sometimes the work is done in multiple institutions, with a separate advisor in each. In some systems, most people who supervise students are not formally qualified to do so, creating a need for a separate formal supervisor. Sometimes there are two equal advisors, and sometimes the advisor changes for various reasons. Sometimes the student is an independent scholar and the advisors are only loosely involved in the work. If you only have written records, it can be impossible to tell which of these was the case for a particular student.
To give you an example, about half of my group at University X did a Bachelor's in statistics at University X, then a Mater's in statistics at University X, then a PhD in statistics at University X, and some are even doing a PostDoc (in statistics at University X)!
https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=38586
Bernoulli -> Euler -> Lagrange -> Poisson and Fourier
I suppose this was done by hand. Having such an overview while doing the research would be really beneficial for discovering novel ideas and connections. I haven't come across such a tool as of yet.
Think about his amour de soi. Did it existed previously anywhere else? Who talked about something similar earlier?
I'd die for something like that.
Rousseau: https://pov.is/e/93f9822c-1ed8-4bc9-aec9-064e7bb6807c Amour de soi: https://pov.is/e/82e9f674-ebbf-4c36-b225-ec1653ce3367
You can go backwards and forwards in time using by-year view (though missing data in Wikidata makes this a bit difficult): https://pov.is/e/93f9822c-1ed8-4bc9-aec9-064e7bb6807c?i=Q5&o...
[1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262045308/ideas-that-created-th... [2] https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/
|
|
|
|
I was never aware of this connection. Is there some reasons or story behind how all of these geniuses clustered together?
See Castelvecchi, D. "Majority of mathematicians hail from just 24 scientific ‘families’". Nature 537, 20–21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20491
https://web.archive.org/web/20121112081753/http://www.telegr...
I came up with this game after realizing I had an Erdős–Bacon number. He credits me, but spun the article to make this sound like a "thing" other people cared about.
I was written out of that Wikipedia page long ago. Very little of what survives on that page stands up to close scrutiny.
Combining these numbers is an obscure amusement, but people take the separate numbers seriously. For Erdős numbers, should one count posthumous papers? My "2" via Persi Diaconis goes to "3" if one doesn't.
The original intent of the Bacon number game was to count actors in fictional speaking roles. My "2" here is from a speaking role in "A Beautiful Mind". The "Oracle of Bacon" replaced this intent with whatever their database could easily report. Appearing as oneself in a documentary on Erdős had the obvious hilarious effect.
One understand these links better by studying IMBD credits. Daniel Kleitman's "2" depends on a "Thanks" credit from "Good Will Hunting", and few of the other low Bacon numbers on the Erdős–Bacon Wikipedia page can be confirmed at all.
Perhaps some of these people are available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_by_Erdős_number