Day 157 – Erdős–Bacon Number

You may be familiar with prestigious awards like the Nobel Prize. For example, winning a Nobel Prize in economics indicates that you’ve significantly influenced your field through impactful research and contributions. However, an even more intriguing measure of distinction exists—the Erdős–Bacon number.

You might not have heard of this number before, so let me briefly explain. You probably know about the fun social game called the “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon,” where actors are connected to Kevin Bacon through a chain of films they’ve appeared in together. Your “Bacon number” indicates how closely you’re connected to Kevin Bacon himself. If you’ve acted directly alongside Kevin Bacon, your Bacon number is 1. If you’ve acted with someone who has acted with Bacon, your number is 2, and so on. Most actors typically have a Bacon number of 7 or fewer.

There’s a similar concept in mathematics known as the “Erdős number,” referring to mathematician Paul Erdős. This measures your academic collaboration distance from Erdős in published mathematical papers. If you’ve co-authored a paper directly with Erdős, your Erdős number is 1. If you’ve co-authored with someone who co-authored with Erdős, your Erdős number is 2, and so forth.

Combining these two numbers gives you the “Erdős–Bacon number,” and having a low Erdős–Bacon number is an exceptionally rare achievement. It signifies that you’ve both published a peer-reviewed scientific paper and appeared in a major motion picture, a rare combination indeed.

Take Richard Thaler, for instance. Currently holding an Erdős–Bacon number of 5, Thaler is not only a distinguished economist with numerous influential publications, but he’s also appeared in major films. His Erdős–Bacon number might arguably be even more prestigious than the Nobel Prize he received in 2017. Check out this clip from the movie the Big Short. Thaler and Selena Gomez talk economics: https://youtu.be/Pxr_FzpPM2Q?si=HTRUySYUPo–6BHa

Exploring Erdős–Bacon numbers is a fun way to discover fascinating facts about well-known figures. For instance, Bill Gates has an Erdős–Bacon number of 4, Stephen Hawking’s is 6, and surprisingly, actor Colin Firth also has a number of 6. Colin Firth’s Erdős–Bacon number is particularly intriguing, given his impressive film career and unexpected contributions in political neuro-science.

Another notable example is mathematician Daniel Kleitman, who boasts a remarkable Erdős–Bacon number. Kleitman, known for advising on mathematical content for the film “Good Will Hunting,” also appeared as an extra in the movie. Through the cast, Kleitman connects directly to Minnie Driver, who starred alongside Kevin Bacon in “Sleepers,” thus giving Kleitman a low Bacon number.

This unique intersection of science and cinema illustrates how creative pursuits and academic excellence can unexpectedly intersect. By following the Erdős–Bacon trail, you uncover captivating stories that bridge the gap between mathematics, science, and popular culture.

0 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Share the Post:

Recent Blogs

Day 330 – Cognitive Magic Pills

The article discusses the phenomenon of “cognitive magic pills,” which are alluring solutions to problems often peddled on social media. It uses the example of cortisol being rebranded as the “stress hormone” to illustrate how these concepts gain credibility and lead people to believe in quick fixes for complex issues. The author encourages readers to be critical of such trends and to focus on understanding their own bodies and minds rather than seeking easy solutions.

Day 329 – Art is Capturing the Form

The author explores the concept of art through the lens of form and function, using two tape measures as an analogy. They then delve into Charles Ross’s Star Axis project, which aims to capture the journey of the North Star, suggesting it as a powerful example of art capturing form and connecting humanity across time.

Day 328 – Would You Trust Your Brain?

The author explores the idea of copying a human brain into an AI and questions the trustworthiness of such an AI, highlighting human biases and limitations. The piece argues that AI excels in repetitive tasks and factual recall but will never truly think like a human. It also delves into the author’s personal frustration with an AI agent, revealing that the frustration stemmed from their own inadequacy and unwillingness to plan, rather than the AI’s limitations. The author concludes by suggesting that AI’s “flaws” often reflect human tendencies and a lack of clarity in communication.

Day 327 – We Need God

This article explores the practical necessity of a concept of God, regardless of personal belief in a literal deity. It argues that humans need a higher, fixed point of reference to establish values, prevent self-serving rationalizations, and guide their aspirations beyond immediate desires and worldly pursuits.