On Monday 14 July 2003 1:36 pm, Phil Gregg wrote: > So, Walshaw numbers must of necessity be very small for all of us!
The nature of the beast is that it is actually quite difficult to get a high Erdos number (well, mine is infinite). I seem to recall reading somewhere a mathematician's comment that he didn't believe there was a published mathematician with an Erdos number in double figures. I reckon via Julian Goodacre I must have a Walshaw number of 3 or 4, but goodness knows what the minimum path actually is (are). Cheers, Calum To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
