``It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."
Grigory Perelman

For all his other-worldliness and nobility, Perelman's refusal of the Fields Medal also carries a deep sense of bitterness. And the cause may not be Yau, as most commentators said. ``I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse.'' [Nasar, paragraph 3 from the end.] In living up to his own principles, Perelman was apparently rejected or betrayed by his Russian colleagues, leading to his leaving the Steklov Institute.

Grigori Perelman can be found on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

where there is a section on his ``Withdrawal from mathematics'':

``According to various sources, in the spring of 2003, Perelman suffered a bitter personal blow when the faculty of the Steklov Institute allegedly declined to re-elect him as a member,[16] apparently in part out of continuing doubt over his claims regarding the geometrization conjecture. His friends are said to have stated that he currently finds mathematics a painful topic to discuss; some
even say that he has abandoned mathematics entirely.[17] ...''

The reference [16] above is a report on ``The Sydney Morning Herald''

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/maths-genius-living-in-poverty/2006/08/20/1156012411120.html

from which we read:

``His present predicament stems from a rancorous split with a leading Russian mathematical institute, the Steklov Institute in St Petersburg, which failed to re-elect him as a member in 2003. Dr Perelman, 40, was made to feel an "absolutely ungifted and untalented person", a friend said. He suffered a crisis of confidence and cut himself off.''

If these reports are reliable, then Perelman's bitterness is inflicted more from inside Russia than from elsewhere, and I wonder how the Russian establishment sees this matter now that IMU has awarded Perelman a Fields Medal.

造成这个局面也有佩雷尔曼的责任



(1)他的非正规论文发表途径
(2)他没有清楚地给出完整的证明。

不能全怪他的俄国同事

I am very sorry for messing up with the Chinese fonts, and shall try to find a way to fix it. Moderator, kindly delete the preceding three messages. Here is what I meant to say.

Certainly. However, it is unimaginably queer for an institute to have failed to re-elect a member who had potentially resolved the Poincar\'e conjecture.

这正说明了遵守学术规范的重要性
包括解除完全的数学证明并发表在经过审稿得杂志上。
独立特行固然引人注目，但是独立特行也是有代价的，
佩雷尔曼的遭遇正是独立特行所付得代价。

其实，如果不要求详细证明的话，那彭加勒猜想
不早就在那儿一百多年了么？后来所有的工作，
不过都是“填补”细节罢了。

You are exactly right.

The IMU published a series of bulletins before the ICM. One of these
(July 15) contains an interview with Atiyah, who was asked,``After
Perelman's work, can the Poincare conjecture be considered proven?''
Here is Atiyah's answer:

``The work of Perelman on the famous Poincare conjecture is widely
admired. But in mathematical questions of this complexity final
judgement is suspended until the complete proof has been written
down, scrutinized by the mathematical community and accepted. That
stage has not yet come.''

I think this should be the standard, and, UNTIL NOW, has been the
standard in the mathematics community on important problems,
including the award of the Fields Medals. In the recent drama on the
resolution of the Poincar\'e conjecture, all parties are loser:

(1) Perelman leaves mathematics (or the mathematics community) with
a sense of bitterness.

(2) Yau, for all his best intentions and mathematical prowness,
ruined his own reputation by being too self-promoting in the eyes of
others.

(3) The IMU compromised the high standard of the Fields Medals.

(4) The mathematics community now is ready to accept ``sketches''
for ``proofs''. Whereas before the ICM, not a single important
mathematician, apart from Yau, confirmed that the conjecture had
been settled. By now, after the ICM, ``everyone'' agrees (or has to
agree). What a big fall!

[161632]: [I]t is unimaginably queer for an institute to have failed to re-elect a member who had potentially resolved the Poincar\'e conjecture.

[元江]: 这正说明了 遵守学术规范的重要性 ...

*** But it is very precarious for anybody, in order to keep his job, to be required to completely fulfil these standards, which are standards to ascertain correctness.

[161632]: ... The IMU published a series of bulletins before the ICM. One of these (July 15) contains an interview with Atiyah ...

*** It should be July 3 (Bulletin 8) instead of July 15. This can be found at

http://www.icm2006.org/press/bulletins/bulletin08/

Before Atiyah's interview, the first item of the same bulletin is

The Clay Institute will be present at ICM2006

with a brief introduction:

``Refereed publication of detailed treatments of Perelman work on the Poincar¨¦ Conjecture is imminent, thus setting the stage for eventual award of one of the Millennium Prizes''.

Note that up to this time (early July), at most one publication could be claimed
to have been refereed.

http://boards.newyorker.com/thread.jspa?threadID=762&tstart=0


bluebells
Posted: Oct 1, 2006 12:39 PM

The lies, slander, and overt racism in the article by Nasar and Gruber left me enraged. But David Remnicks's subsequent defense of the article as "nuanced and fair" leaves me speechless.

I should say that I love the New Yorker. I give it to my friends so they too can enjoy this unique source of sensitivity, truth, and beautiful writing. And I have been reading David Remnick's work since I was in middle school and he was a reporter for the Washington Post (covering the fall of the Soviet Union).

The Nasar article is a piece of pure fiction: it relies critically on a false quote (the 50/25/30 breakdown, which has been clearly shown to be a fabrication by a Chinese reporter--not that this demonstration was even necessary; your average undergrad math major would NEVER EVER make such a mistake, let alone one of the greatest mathematicians of the century--it would be like forgetting that gravity pulls things down. Obviously, neither Nasar nor the New Yorker fact checker were math majors).

It is conceivable that the New Yorker was not aware of the falsehood of the quote prior to publication. BUT, when presented with clear evidence of its falsehood subsequently, I would have expected the New Yorker to raise its spectacles in attention, and to LISTEN. I would have expected the New Yorker to value the word and character of an individual infinitely more than some corporate interests, and to respond in a spirit of openness to the truth--something like, "The New Yorker places a premium on tuith and rigorously fact checks each and every article. We are deeply disturbed by the allegations raised by Professor Yau concerning the veracity of the article by Nasar and Gruber, and are undertaking a serious investigation." Instead they issue some legally expedient self-protective mumbo jumbo. However they decide to extricate themselves (sadly, they will probably succeed), the characterization of the article as "nuanced and fair" is prima facie a lie. There is nothing nuanced about showing a man yanking a medal from another man's neck. You don't have to be a New Yorker writer to understand that.

So kids: even for a writer as brutally observant as David Remnick, when push comes to shove, when acknowlegding the truth could come at a personal cost (for a change), the easy lie is preferred.

Echoing someone else's post, I also hope that someone can organize a means for interested indiviuals to contribute to Yau's legal efforts. I would like to contribute.