Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

34

7

The recent question about the most prolific collaboration interested me. How about this question in the opposite direction, then: can anyone beat, amongst contemporary mathematicians, the example of Christopher Hooley, who has written 91 papers and has yet to coauthor a single one (at least if one discounts an obituary written in 1986)?

edited Jun 21 2010 at 13:54

Ben Green

community wiki

2 revisions

8

Quite hard to sharpen anything of Hooley's. – Charles Matthews Jun 21 2010 at 13:23

51

There's a Hooley-Wooley theorem? The world is a slightly better place than I had realized. – Pete L. Clark Jun 21 2010 at 16:17

6

Great question! There is a huge career incentive to have joint papers because each author gets credit for the paper. It's a lot of work to write solely authored papers, work that isn't properly accounted in the career structure of mathematics. I'm not against joint papers, there are certainly good reasons to have joint papers, but the bad reason is a real problem. Besides just counting papers, you could also look at very long papers such as those by Gromov, or of course harder measures of significance or originality. – Greg Kuperberg Jun 21 2010 at 16:27

10

There's also Hooley, Crelle 328 (1981), 161--207, which depends crucially on Milne, Crelle 328 (1981), 208--220. Maybe I should have insisted on a joint paper.... – JS Milne Jun 21 2010 at 16:49

6

Emerton (Matt) 2: So my advice to anyone worried about employment is that you should write joint papers for both good reasons and cynical reasons. Yes, you should admire and emulate Feit-Thompson, Hardy-Littlewood, Atiyah-Singer, etc. But you should also write joint papers just because it's easier and it works in your favor. If given a choice between a thank you in the acknowledgments and coauthorship, your decision might rationally depend on whether you have tenure. – Greg Kuperberg Jun 21 2010 at 19:52

show 9 more comments

Felipe Voloch · Accepted Answer · 2010-06-21 18:01:07Z UTC

33

Lucien Godeaux wrote more than 600 papers and not one of them is a joint paper. He cowrote a textbook in projective geometry. Mathscinet records only 15 citations to all these papers! But there is something called Godeaux surfaces which is mentioned in the literature. This is about the weirdest example I know.

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/author.html?mrauthid=241534

answered Jun 21 2010 at 18:01

Felipe Voloch

community wiki

9

This is extraordinary! It looks like he kept the Belgian journals in business single-handed..... – Ben Green Jun 21 2010 at 18:35

9

I can't help but feel that this record is somehow pathological if he had so few citations. To have someone work so hard and yet attract so little attention is bizarre. I would be interested in a more complete explanation of how it happened. – Greg Kuperberg Jun 21 2010 at 19:06

16

Greg, MathSciNet only lists citations after about 1997. For example, they list only 16 citations from references for Weil's Foundations of Algebraic Geometry, the earliest of which is 1997. – JS Milne Jun 21 2010 at 19:27

11

Greg, there are well-known results of Godeaux in birational geometry of surfaces. On the other hand, since you are so worried about citations, check out author="Riemann, B*" on MathSciNet. You may be in for a shock! – Victor Protsak Jun 22 2010 at 0:15

10

Here's a way to get mathscinet to give an idea of Godeaux's influence: searching for papers with "Godeaux" in the title gives 34 hits, and searching for papers with "Godeaux" anywhere gives 856, so subtracting his 682 papers gives 174 papers with "Godeaux" in one of the mathscinet searchable fields. – GS Jun 22 2010 at 8:52

show 5 more comments

Helge · Answer 2 · 2010-06-21 13:37:38Z UTC

9

I always like William Veech (57 papers) although it's unlikely, he will catch up. But his citation count is higher (after mathscinet).

answered Jun 21 2010 at 13:37

Helge

community wiki

3

An excellent example. Like Hooley, he's being resisting collaboration for 50-odd years.... – Ben Green Jun 21 2010 at 15:00

Péter Komjáth · Answer 3 · 2010-06-21 15:38:59Z UTC

11

Leopold Vietoris (1891-2002) wrote more than 70 papers, only one of them with a coauthor see here.

answered Jun 21 2010 at 15:38

Péter Komjáth

community wiki

7

The last of his papers appearing in 1994. I wonder how many other mathematicians have published after their 100th birthday? – GS Jun 21 2010 at 19:16

4

Stephen, sometimes people publish even after they are dead. For example, Robert Remak died in 1942 and his last paper appeared in 1954. Several decades old manuscripts find their way to print, too. – Victor Protsak Jun 22 2010 at 0:21

14

Is Euler still posting his papers on the arxiv? – Boyarsky Jun 22 2010 at 1:26

2

Victor, Boyarsky, Good point; it looks to me like it's plausible that Vietoris' last publication was a manuscript he'd had sitting around for a long time (it was part III of a series in which I and II appeared in the 50s). On the other hand, he published a few other things in the mid 80s. In the absence of definitive proof I prefer to believe that he was mathematically active past 100! (And please don't spoil my fun if you know otherwise...) – GS Jun 23 2010 at 9:43

8

My basic AT instructor told us about how Vietoris was winning skiing competitions well into the end of his life, he was the only person in his age group. – Sean Tilson Jul 27 2010 at 1:05

show 1 more comment

Mohan Ramachandran · Answer 4 · 2010-06-21 17:50:07Z UTC

15

How about Marina Ratner.I believe she has had no collaborators

edited Jun 21 2010 at 17:50

Mohan Ramachandran

community wiki

2 revisions

4

That is true! She only has 31 papers, but some of these have had an enormous influence on modern mathematics. – Ben Green Jun 21 2010 at 17:52

16

Wiles has 21 research papers. Emil Artin's collected works fill a small book. The "quantity" metric is not so meaningful. – BCnrd Jun 21 2010 at 17:59

40

As Gauss said about Dirichlet's output, "One does not weigh jewels on a grocer’s scales”. – KConrad Jun 21 2010 at 18:38

5

Greg, re the quote from Gauss: it is apparently in a letter from Gauss to Humboldt in 1845, which may be found in *Briefwechsel zwischen Alexander von Humboldt und Carl Friedrich Gauss* (edited by K.R. Biermann), p.88. Unfortunately, this book in not in our library, so I can't verify this immediately. – John Stillwell Jun 22 2010 at 1:39

12

With some creative Googling I found the original quote. Gauss nominated Dirichlet for some distinction, and he defended his thin publication recrord with the statement, "Aber sie sind Juwele, und Juwele wägt man nicht mit der Krämerwaage." In current American English, you could translate it as: "But they are gems, and you wouldn't weigh gems on a grocery scale." – Greg Kuperberg Jun 23 2010 at 23:43

show 9 more comments

Christian Blatter · Answer 5 · 2010-06-21 17:50:06Z UTC

2

This question really troubles me. It's like asking for the name of the smallest iceberg.

answered Jun 21 2010 at 17:50

Christian Blatter

community wiki

3

Why is it like that? – Pete L. Clark Jun 22 2010 at 2:51

2

@Christian: This is not really an answer but merely a comment, isn't it? – Martin Brandenburg Jun 22 2010 at 10:47

2

maybe this is because he does not have enough reputation to comment. – Sean Tilson Jul 27 2010 at 1:07

Least collaborative mathematician

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

5 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.