Mathematician Claims New Yorker Defamed Him

An anonymous reader writes, "Last month the New Yorker ran the article 'Manifold Destiny' (slashdotted here), by Sylvia Nasar, author of 'A Beautiful Mind.' Now a renowned Harvard mathematics professor, Dr. Shing-Tung Yau, is claiming the article defamed him. His attorney wrote the New Yorker a letter (PDF) threatening that Yau will have 'no choice but to consider other options' if Nasar, her co-author, and the New Yorker fail to undo the damage done."

Hey!

[AltGrendel]

Doesn't this prove the article's point?

I'm not totally surprised

[igb]

When I read the original article it struck me that either they had very good sources, or they were confident he wouldn't sue, or they were happy to get embroiled in one of those venue shopping disputes. Given The New Yorker is sold in newsagents in the UK, and people here have subscriptions (I do, for example), and mathmatics is an international field, it's hard to see how a UK court would object to being the venue for a libel action such as this. And, on the face of it, the guy wouldn't have problems showing the words were capable of admitting a defamatory reading, which is the basic test, or that it would lower him in the eyes of a reader, which is another. They'd have to plead justification, and that's hard.

Hell hath no fury like an academic with his reputation scorned.

ian

Re:I'm not totally surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell hath no fury like an academic with his reputation scorned.

Probably because academics seldom have more than a reputation. It's their legacy and what they leave in the world, they don't accumulate toys to show status at the end but instead rest in peace knowing their papers added to mankind's knowledge.

Re:Yau

[Timesprout]

While I dont even begin to understand the math it looks a little more murky than blatantly just trying to steal Perelmans credit. No one seems to have found significant error in Perelmans work but also no one seems to understand completely how he actually arrived at his solution. Now I remember from my math class that if you could not show how you arrived at your answer it was treated as a guess and thrown out.

I am not saying Perelman did not solve the conjecture but his approach to publishing his work in a piecemeal and incomplete manner was a poor choice and left him wide open to what has happened (note he does come across as somewhat eccentric in the article). Yau does appear to be filling in gaps though after someone else did all the grunt work for him so while he has completed the work by doing so he has proved that Perelman was in fact correct.

It's Math!

[Billosaur]

Who cares? Some professor of Math gets his knickers in a twist because he's been outted as a self-aggrandizing, self-important weasel by his peers, only confirming his peers' extimation of him, and this is important? Somebody get this guy some Xanax and a legal dictionary then send him off to some nice, quiet, restful place where he can contemplate geometry and leave the rest of us alone.

Re:silly math person

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

I think he is FULLY aware of that.

Re:Defamation

[cool_arrow]

When you speak negatively about someone, however true it may be, how likely are you to confess to it when asked by that person (or his reps) whether it was true. Human nature being what it is.

Prize of $1M for proof of this conjecture

[Mathinker]

I've read all the posts up to now, and most are overlooking what I think is an important fact.

The Clay Institute [claymath.org] has put up a bounty of one million US dollars for a proof of this conjecture.

There seems to be a good chance that Perelman [wikipedia.org] will decline it (or his share of it), given his behavior.

This may be a factor in Yau's rush to get a share of the credit. He's famous enough that he doesn't really need to do this to improve reputation.

Re:Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

In my mind, yes. Using these kinds of tactics is precisely what the New Yorker accused Yau of doing.

I find something very wrong with this analysis. Specifically, what means does he have of addressing his perceived problem?

It's like if I think Joe is going to kick me and warn people about his agressive behavior, then go and kick him myself (for whatever reason). Joe had no intention of kicking me initially, but the reasonable reaction to my assault is to kick me back. When he does this I can say, "You see? I told you he was like that! He just proved my point."

A major flaw of our society is that it's extremely easy to fuck someone over, but extremely hard to UN-fuck their lives. Ask anyone falsely accused of any crime - their association with the crime follows them forever .

So, I repeat his dilemma: what means does he have of addressing his perceived problem? Damage was done. This is just him kicking back.

Re:sue!

[Wavicle]

Why cant we all get along

Because there is more money to be made in not getting along.

Re:Hey!

[the-empty-string]

Doesn't this prove the article's point?

Actually, no. He claims the authors distorted the facts, and he provides his own account of said facts as he sees them. How does this prove anything? What you're saying is no different from "I think this guy really raped that girl, because he acted too outraged when we accused him."

I actually read the original article in the New Yorker at the time, and found it to be a fascinating look into the inner workings of science at the highest level. Having no direct knowledge of any of the people involved, my impresion of their roles in the story (and ultimately of their character), was shaped entirely by what the article authors have said. In particular, Dr. Yau did come across as a deeply flawed, manipulative individual obsessed by his place in history, which I thought was very sad indeed, given his apparently uncontested mathematical genius and his achievements formaly acknowledged by having been awarded his very own Fields Medal.

However, after reading the letter, I am not so sure anymore. Don't forget that he who frames the discussion controls the outcome. Once this article has been out there, people already formed their perceptions. The deck is stacked against the defendant. Remember how Al Gore took credit for inventing the Internet? Oh, wait, he didn't.

What if the thrust of the story is in fact false? The letter states rather convincingly that the interviews were conducted under false pretenses, that certain critical quotes were distorted or outright fabricated, and that important pieces of information that would have painted a different picture were simply left out. Yeah, he "looks" guilty in the original article, but why should we consider that version of the facts true, and discard the letter as "proving the point"? That's not how we arrive at the truth.

Slashdotted here?

[Chapter80]

Last month the New Yorker ran the article 'Manifold Destiny' (slashdotted here)

Since when does "Slashdotted" mean "reported and discussed on Slashdot" as opposed to "site went down due to the Slashdot effect" [wikipedia.org]?

Does anyone actually doubt that Yau is a theif?

[chaboud]

This isn't the first time that he's used failure to understand portions of proofs to piggyback on others by collaborating to fill non-holes in proofs.

Part of this is due to the obscenely political state of modern mathematics. Part of it is the silly amount of credit given to people willing to do the grunt work of filling out proofs, even though it's important. Still, a great deal of this has to be put on Yau and his strong-arm, slap-dash tactics. It doesn't help that the accusation of the portrayal of a racial stereotype is contained within fulfillment of the accused behavior, but Nasar never said that Chinese mathematicians are dirty, cheating bastards. She said that Yau is.

Yau's press-release shows how much he believes he represents Chinese mathematics. A statement disparaging Yau does the same for Chinese mathematicians?

Please.

There's nothing racial about someone spending the latter half of his life manipulating a broken system when his actual intellect is insufficient.

Re:Lawsuit sounds meritless

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, and it is a felony to practice law without a license here in California. Further, I only know about American defamation law, having been involved in it professionally, and am aware that things are quite different in Great Britain. However, for an American, this letter lays out a necessary but not sufficient argument and basis. I am not discussing the underlying Mathematics, but merely the legal requirements for libel and/or slander.

To win a defamation suit, 3 things must be proved:
(1) The publication is false, or made with a reckless disregard for the truth;
(2) The false or reckless statements are taken as fact, not mere opinion, by at least one member of the audience;
(3) Actual damages have taken place as a result.

The first two are made plausible, although perhaps fall short of compelling.

No actual damages are even outlined. That is, nowhere is the contention established that, for instance, Dr. Yau was to have been given a job, award (as opposed to a second Fields medal for which he is not eligible, by age), book contract, or the like, BUT for the New Yorker article.

That is, Yau's feelings might be hurt, but that is not for the courts to adjudicate. Without damages, there is no tort, and nothing for the legal system to make him whole (i.e. award him some money).

There are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions if Dr. Yau is as a matter of fact a Public Figure.

Professor Jonathan Vos Post
ex-Adjunct Professor of Mathematics, Woodbury University
ex-Adjunct Professor of Astronomy, Cypress College