New Yorker on Perelman and Poincaré Controversy 182
b4stard writes "The New Yorker has an interesting article on the recent proof of the Poincaré conjecture and the controversy surrounding it. This is a very nice read, which, among other things, sheds some light on what may have motivated Perelman in refusing to accept the Fields medal." From the article: "The Fields Medal, like the Nobel Prize, grew, in part, out of a desire to elevate science above national animosities. German mathematicians were excluded from the first I.M.U. congress, in 1924, and, though the ban was lifted before the next one, the trauma it caused led, in 1936, to the establishment of the Fields, a prize intended to be 'as purely international and impersonal as possible.'"
Some people don't want to be famous (Score:5, Insightful)
perhaps he has the best reward there is (Score:1, Insightful)
satisfaction in knowing he was right ?
narcissm and wealth isnt important to everyone (i know this is probably hard for indoctrinated Americans to understand)
good for him i say
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:1, Insightful)
Fame? Would he have gotten an article in the New Yorker by quietly accepting? Not that he's purposefully trying to build a mystique of genius, but if he were, this is the way he'd do it.
I salute Grigory (Score:3, Insightful)
grand, but not so grand (Score:3, Insightful)
And dynamite. Pretty much the coolest invention ever. I don't know why anyone wouldn't list that first.
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not, but he would have gotten one in the New York Times. It isn't so easy to "quietly" accept.
And what is the answer for someone who does not wish fame, but does wish to contribute, and so begins to gather fame for eschewing fame? I've you've got the answer, please let me know, I haven't found it in decades of trying. Neither has Salinger. The best you can do is moderate your notoriety; and hide.
If he didn't want the medal he could have just shut the hell up, but then we wouldn't have the solution.
"There are better men than Diogones, but nobody has ever heard of them."
KFG
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:5, Insightful)
If the way that he is rejecting the Field's Medal is what he concluded it would take to expose the efforts of Yau and Co. to get recognition for work that they did not do, then he is going about it in a good way. The article itself is more an expose into the workings of credit in the world of mathematics than the rejection itself.
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:4, Insightful)
"There are a lot of students of high ability who speak before thinking," Burago said. "Grisha was different. He thought deeply. His answers were always correct. He always checked very, very carefully." Burago added, "He was not fast. Speed means nothing. Math doesn't depend on speed. It is about deep."
The Academy (not to mention Slashdot!) could use a few more people like this.
Parallels between Wiles and Perelman (Score:5, Insightful)
I find the parallels between Perelman's proof of Thurston's Conjecture and Wiles proof of Fermat to be compelling:
Obviously the standing of Wiles and Perelman in the mathematical community couldn't be more different. Lets hope Perelman accepts an academic position somewhere so he can carry on his work with the honor he deserves.
The attempts by the Chinese to claim proof of Poincare is disgusting.
Re:perhaps he has the best reward there is (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably even harder for indoctrinated non-Americans to understand that the vast majority of Americans aren't particularly narcissistic, or remotely wealthy. At this point, in fact, the bulk of us are starting to get pretty damn sick and tired of both those SUV-driving narcissistic fuckwits that we have to contend with on the way to work every day, and judgmental foreigners that insist upon treating America (of all countries) as a monolithic culture.
But so far as refusing the prize is concerned, you're right, I'm sure he has that satisfaction. But, contrary to popular belief, the academic/scientific world is just as rife with dissent, personalities and politics as any other human endeavor. Consequently it's quite likely he refused the prize because he was pissed off about something or someone.
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only geek to doubt this?
Re:perhaps he has the best reward there is (Score:3, Insightful)
It is reassuring to see someone state this every now and again. I must get a T-shirt printed.
Re:perhaps he has the best reward there is (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't indoctrinated by my American parents to be particularly narcissistic or greedy, but I was indoctrinated to be gracious when someone in good faith offers you a gift or award.
Not that I care about whether this particular guy wants an award or not, but the implication that all good-hearted folk would refuse to humbly accept awards or accolades is pretty goofy.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Honorable Guy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Perelman knows he's the one who solved it. The world knows Perelman solved it. And all the mathematicians know in their hearts that he solved it, even Yau. Yau may try to deny Perelman's accomplishment, and may even gain some material rewards he does not truly deserve. But those hollow victories and the methods he used to obtain them will be what Yau is remembered for, while Perelman will be known as the man who proved the Poincare conjecture.
How's that for topology.
I read that the main reason for his hermitage... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are few things more bitter than being betrayed by one, let alone a majority or all of your associates. I know all too well how that kind of utterly profound pain can easily turn one of your greatest passions in life (be it a pursuit or a person) into a source for nothing other than misery.
Depiction of Dr.Yau in the Article (Score:1, Insightful)
There's no controversy (Score:4, Insightful)
He's done his bit, people will remember him, and he'll get to work on more mathematics. He doesn't care, so I don't think we should care either. On to the next (apparently) intractable problem!
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. A good way to build a mystique of genius WOULD be to solve a very old, nigh-unsolvable, famous math problem. Why didn't I think of that?!
That is understandable. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would consider Yau's attitude, if the New Yorker piece is accurate, to be academic fraud, plagarism and the wilfull falsifying of results - any of which are severe enough in academia to warrant the nullification of previous awards, even if these took place afterwards. There have, in fact, been cases where doctorates have been revoked by the awarding University in England as a result of later scholarly abuses. They are certainly sufficiently serious that any professional mathematical society to which Yau belongs should investigate matters for possible disciplinary action should they be true.
(Sure, you can't do much. The military can court-martial, the Government can haul you off to Gitmo, but the mathematician's union is a little more limited. They could probably ban him from conferences they specifically held, and they could probably lean on journals to be more careful in refereeing his work, but that's about it. Well, actually, given his ego, they could probably take out an ad in a major Chinese newspaper, satirizing him. That could probably do him more damage than any official action.)
Personally, I think the Fields medal should have been awarded to Perelman specifically BECAUSE he refused it. They can't make him accept it - but that's what Swiss bank safety deposit boxes are for. On the other hand, they need to make it clear - to him and to everyone else - that mathematics is about truth, and truth has nothing to do with who accepts what. If a proof is correct, then it is correct and that is the end of the matter. Neither politics nor personalities have any say in it.
Furthermore, yes, it does turn him somewhat into a figurehead. And which would YOU prefer to be the role-model for all future mathematicians - the egomaniac or the gentleman? I'd argue that the sciences (and I include maths as a science) need to emphasise honesty, integrity and quality. Most here are computer programmers, or at least familiar with programming, so it would perhaps make sense to liken this to code. Would you rather a program work right (even if it's hard to understand), or be broken and/or stolen (even if it's made easy)? (I'll let you pick which OS' I am referring to, and which one I believe to be inherently superior.)
Perelman's proofs might be "high magic" in the coder's sense of being so hard very few (to none) can understand it, but I fail to see why that should be a problem. If anything, it is proof of the quality of his intellect and instinct. Those who reject that which they cannot understand are superstitious peasents. (Ok, that's a bit of a troll, but it's also true. You cannot learn that which you already understand, so it is only by not understanding that you are capable of learning. Thus, only the intelligent admit ignorance and only the ignorant claim certainty.)
Yau has claimed that he does not understand the proof. So where does the problem lie - with pto proof or Yau? Well, obviously Yau. If the problem was the proof, then Yau could establish where the error was that resulted in the proof being nonsense. The inability to establish such a proof does not mean that Perelman's work is perfect, only that it is beyond Yau to make any claims about it whatsoever. Were I to write a flawless program in raw assembly, would flaws magically apear if someone who could not read assembly state that it was incomprehensible to them? That would be stupid.
This entire dispute cuts to the heart of ALL theoretical and practical sciences and SHOULD be examined in depth by all official bodies with any degree of say in the matter. Perelman should NOT be permitted to walk away and play victim. If he is a victim of academic fraud, then academia has a responsib
Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score:3, Insightful)
After growing up, children living with parents may be a source of derision in America, but in some countries 2 or 3 generations living under one roof is not unusual. Not that I am saying Russia is one of these since I don't know much about Russia, but I believe it's time for people making these comments to grow up rather than the people in these type of situations -- afterall, not all of the instances are equal.
Re:perhaps he has the best reward there is (Score:1, Insightful)
People around the world believe what they do about America because from all outward appearances, very little is being done about it. When there was a question about the validity of an election in Ukraine, Ukranians came out and protested in huge numbers until something was done about it. It was the truest expression of democracy that the world has seen in a long time. Ultimately, they have the US to thank in large part for even giving them that opportunity, but when it looked like their rights were in jeopardy, they stood up and didn't waste the opportunity offered them.
In comparison, two American elections went by with a comparative whimper from those that felt the election results weren't necessarily on the up and up. For Americans to not be able to rid themselves of someone like GWB if they really wanted to is ridiculous, so the perception is that really, that's who America wanted to lead them, even if 49.9% of the population voted against him.
I'm Canadian, and I'm friends with many Americans. On an individual basis, Americans that I'm friendly with think very much like I do (for good or ill; I'm a filthy socialist hippie
Anyway, long story short: I'm sure you're very nice, are just as tired of the SUV driving morons that ruin your country as we are, and don't necessarily fit every American stereotype. Don't take it too personally when the rest of us complain about your compatriots. We'll try not to take it personally when you make fun of our oddly coloured money.
Re:Biased and Distorted Article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perelman is like Linus! (Score:2, Insightful)
Perelman's logic for rejecting a Fields medal (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:That is understandable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Michael Anderson Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Honorable Guy. (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. If he is convinced that he has "enough," then he really means it. Even while living in America, he had to live an ascetic life to earn enough money to save up to pay for the rest of his life in Russia. To a person who had access to the sort of money to live a more extravagant life and who didn't in the past, a prize like this means nothing financially.
His needs are met. Any other raise in his standard of living is just more expense and more distraction. I envy people like this who can be happy with nothing but the basics.
Re:Parallels between Wiles and Perelman (Score:1, Insightful)
Fields medals stop at 40... [ageism] (Score:2, Insightful)
What do old computer scientist do, they can't all become academics, managers and/or administrators...
Youth is wasted on the young.
I thought an Engineering degree and computer science work would be applied enough and be structured enough to look like a reasonable career choice. It is not I am still looking for something that will suit me better, should I have shot for the moon, done pure maths and ended up a school teacher (not a well respected or well paid position in these parts. My father had the same choice having been best in his school at mathematics, there were few computers in 1960, so he followed in his fathers footsteps and did medicine, maybe my recently born kid can follow his star, shine brightly and live on welfare after his short bright career fades.