From http://www.doctoryau.com

Anderson's clarification on Nasar's misinterpretation
Oct. 6, 2006

Many of you have probably seen the New Yorker article by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber on Perelman and the Poincare conjecture.

In many respects, it's very interesting and a pleasure to read. However, it contains a number of inaccuracies and downright errors.

I spent several hours talking with Sylvia Nasar trying to dissuade her from incorporating the Tian-Yau fights into the article, since it was completely irrelevant and I didn't see the point of dragging readers through the mud. Obviously I was not successful.

The quote attributed to me on Yau is completely inaccurate and distorted from some remarks I made to her in a quite different context; I made it explicit to her that the remarks I was making in that context were purely speculative and had no basis in fact. I did not give her my permission to quote me on this, even with the qualification of speculation.

There are other inaccuracies about Stony Brook. One for instance is the implication that Tian at MIT was the first to invite Perelman to the US to give talks. This is of course false — we at Stony Brook were the first to do so. I stressed in my talks with her the role Stony Brook played, yet she focuses on the (single) talk Grisha gave at Princeton, listing a collection of eminent mathematicians, none of whom is a geometer/topologist. I was not given an opportunity to set the record straight with the New Yorker before publication; this was partly because I was traveling in Europe at the time this happened, and there was a rush to publish; the publication date is the same as the announcement date of the Fields Medals I think.

I was not sent an advance copy of the article for checking. I spoke with Sylvia on the phone this morning, to no avail. I've also had some email correspondence with Yau on the matter over the last day. I apologized to him and expressed my anger and frustration about what was done, confirming to him the quote attributed to me is false and baseless. (The email to Yau is now already posted on a Chinese blog site!)

I've learned my lesson on dealing with the media the hard and sour way and am still considering what path to pursue to try to rectify the situation, to the extent still possible.

Sincerely,

Michael Anderson
Professor of Mathematics
State University of New York at Stony Brook

Hehe, this is an interesting and conservative letter!

:: I spent several hours talking with Sylvia Nasar trying to dissuade her
:: from incorporating the Tian-Yau fights into the article, since it was
:: completely irrelevant and I didn't see the point of dragging readers
:: through the mud.

This paragraph merely says he thought Tian-Yau fights are IRRELEVANT to the article, not that he thought the description of the fights is incorrect or not.

:: I made it explicit to her that the remarks I was making in that context
:: were purely speculative and had no basis in fact.

According to this, he did make remarks as quoted by Nasar, the only problem is Nasar didn't get his permission to quote, and didn't quote his words as speculations.

:: I've also had some email correspondence with Yau on the matter over the last
:: day.... (The email to Yau is now already posted on a Chinese blog site!)

Implicit as it is, he expressed his surprise about his private email went to a Chinese blog (who leaked it out? :)

In general, it seems to me Anderson wrote this letter because situation doesn't allow him to keep silent. :)