Re:Some people don't want to be famous (Score 1)

An open letter to Ms. Nasar. Dear Ms. Nasar: As a mathematician born in China, I am deeply offended by your article with Mr. Gruber in the recent issue of the New Yorker. Your narrative plays to the stereotype that mathematicians of Chinese heritage are "technical" but not "original". (1) In the first sentence of your article, you identified Professor Yau as "the Chinese mathematician". In fact: Yau is a U. S. citizen. To make my point simple: Don't you agree that it oddly emphasizes your cultural heritage if you are called "the Bavarian journalist and writer"? (I noticed that you were listed as an American journalist and writer born in Bavaria in the Wikipedia.) You wasted no time to connect the dots in the next sentence: Yau was "a thinker of unrivalled technical power". (2) In your narrative of the works that led to Yau's Fields medal, you misrepresented the facts and downplayed the originality of Yau's contribution. "In 1976, he proved a twenty-year-old conjecture pertaining to a type of manifold that is now crucial to string theory. A French mathematician had formulated a proof of the problem, which is known as Calabi's conjecture, but Yau's, because it was more general, was more powerful... 'He was not so much thinking up some original way of looking at a subject but solving extremely hard technical problems that at the time only he could solve, by sheer intellect and force of will,' Phillip Griffiths, a geometer and a former director of the Institute for Advanced Study, said". (3) Even in your narrative of Chern, there is no mention of any of his original work or idea. (4) In Yau's seminar, "[e]ach student was assigned a recently published proof and asked to reconstruct it, fixing any errors and filling in gaps". As for the controversy surrounding Givental's work, "[o]ccasionally, the difference between a mathematical gap and a gap in exposition can be hard to discern. On at least one occasion, Yau and his students [Bong Lian and Kefeng Liu] have seemed to confuse the two, making claims of originality that other mathematicians believe are unwarranted." You were adamant that Professor Givental's work was complete and correct. A simple search in MathSciNet's review of Givental's paper would have given you a different perspective. (5) In your narrative of Professor Tian's reaction to Yau's allegations, you again emphasized Tian's Chinese heritage: "I [Tian] have deep roots in Chinese culture. A teacher is a teacher. There is respect. It is very hard for me to think of anything to do." (6) "Yau's entrepreneurial drive extended to collaborations with colleagues and students, and, in addition to conducting his own research, he began organizing seminars. He frequently allied himself with brilliantly inventive mathematicians, including Richard Schoen and William Meeks." Yau has many students and collaborators of Chinese heritage; some of them are now professors in top universities in this country. Of course, none of them are supposed to be "inventive", not even "Yau's most successful student" Tian. I also question the connotation of "entrepreneurial". (7) It is now clear that you are determined to prove your point. "Mathematicians familiar with Perelman's proof disputed the idea that Zhu and Cao had contributed significant new approaches to the Poincaré. 'Perelman already did it and what he did was complete and correct,' John Morgan said. 'I don't see that they did anything different.'" " 'It is not clear to me what new contribution did they [Cao and Zhu] make,' he [Perelman] said. 'Apparently, Zhu did not quite understand the argument and reworked it.'" I argue that the statements of Morgan and Perelman are not necessarily consistent with each other. Morgan said Cao-Zhu did nothing different from Perelman, while Perelman said Cao-Zhu did not understand his argument and had to "reworked" it, thus implying that they did at least something different. I could have listed a lot more; but I think these are sufficient to illustrate my point. Here is a challenge to you, Ms. Nasar: List the sentences in your long article that associate mathematicians of Chinese heritage with "originality", and likewise list those that separate them from "technicality". I have enjoyed tremendously reading your beautifully written "A beautiful mind". It was a moving and inspirational story. I am now then truly disappointed and horrified by this article of yours in the New Yorker, a magazine that is supposed to represent the best of intelligentsia. Personal vendettas lead us nowhere. Your article is hugely biased. It is a disservice to the mathematical community as a whole; it irreparably and unnecessarily damages Yau's reputation; it does not help Tian; and most importantly, it promotes the false and harmful stereotypes of mathematicians of certain cultures. One internet chatter, apparently a mathematician/student of Chinese origin, reported that one of his colleagues placed the cartoon in your article on the office door. The chatter stated that he felt "ashamed" when passing by the colleague's office. For all the harms that have occurred, I believe, at the minimum, a public apology from you and the New Yorker to all is warranted. Sincerely yours, A mathematician born in China