I think what Erdos did is almost the opposite. I say this as someone who has thoroughly explored both extremes. Intellectual pursuits provide intelligent people with the stimulus they need. When they are bored, in particular when they are prevented from pursuing their intellectual activities, some drugs offer a way to squash the desperate need for stimulus. However, when there are no restrictions, some other drugs provide the opportunity to push your intellect to its limits, eschewing, temporarily, the need for sleep, sustenance or distraction, to focus on the intellectual task at hand. Very broadly speaking, depressants fulfil the first need and stimulants fulfil the second.

I can say after much exploration that the un-stimulated brain is much more interesting in the medium and long term than the (chemically) stimulated brain. But I don't know anything better than depressants for seeing you through those times when you can't think or work freely.

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the Juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."

Amphetamine and methamphetamine is not the same drug.

True, but I'm assuming he was on Desoxyn, as opposed to some low-grade diet pills.

Paul Hoffman's biography of Erdos :

"Erdös first did mathematics at the age of three, but for the last twenty-five years of his life, since the death of his mother, he put in nineteen-hour days, keeping himself fortified with 10 to 20 milligrams of Benzedrine or Ritalin, strong espresso, and caffeine tablets. "[0]

[0]: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-man.html

10-20 mg of Ritalin isn't that much. The average adult with ADHD takes 20-30 mg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181133/

Compairing Erdos with other Mathematicians is a really bad idea. I believe he would have been an outlier without drugs. Its like comparing Lance Armstrong with other racers.

Lance Armstrong also benefited from artificial performance enhancement.

That was indeed the parents point, I believe. Armstrong was still an outlier, and the drugs allowed him to take that further. Even without them he would've been one of the best (assuming all things being equal and no one else has access either).

Still, a mathematician improving vastly on drugs can be a net benefit for society since the work done stays. A cyclist.. I don't see it. Not that I'm advocating for drugs in general here.

Lance Armstrong is also one in seven billion, drugs or not.