老丁批驳小丁：丁夏畦院士给丁伟岳一记响亮的耳光！


Xiaqi Ding, C.U.N.Y. Member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, responds
to the New Yorker article

Oct. 10, 2006

Dear Mr. Cooper,

The New Yorker published a long article entitled "Manifold Destiny? A le
gendary problem and the battle over who solved it" on August 28, making
unbridled humiliations and personal attacks on an international highly p
restige and academically achieved mathematician Dr. Shing-Tung Yau. This
has never happened before in the academic history, and I must say the a
rticle makes the American mathematical community shameful. Authors S. Na
sar and D. Gruber of the article interviewed many people. Unfortunately
most of the interviewees are not experts on this field regarding the Poi
ncare conjecture (the authors are surely non-experts). Two of the most i
mportant experts, R. Hamilton and G. Huisken, who have made fundamental
contributions and have the authority to speak about Poincare conjecture,
were not interviewed and their opinions were not published in the artic
le. There is a cartoon in the article. It says Dr.Yau wanted to take the
Perelman's Fields Medal. This is an absurd joke. Dr. Yau has received F
ields Medal more than 20 years ago at 1983. He has received Veblen Price
in geometry because of his remarkable achievements on geometrical analy
sis, California Scientist of the Year in 1979 and National Medal of Scie
nce, etc. Most importantly, he has also received Crafoord Prize of the R
oyal Swedish Academy of Sciences, awarded every 7 years, specifically de
signed to amend the absence of a mathematics equivalent for the "Nobel P
rize" every year. Is he really concerned that a young archived mathemati
cian receives the Fields Medal? He is more than 50 years old and already
way past the official age to receive the Fields Medal. Even his student
s Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu are over 40 years old. Whom does he want
to receive the Field Medal? Richard Hamilton said about Dr. Yau: on the
contrary, "Far from stealing credit for Perelman's accomplishment, he h
as praised Perelman's work and joined me in supporting him for the Field
s Medal". From all these facts, The New Yorker article is not telling th
e truth.

As R. Hamilton recalls, Dr. Yau has pointed out that mathematician can u
se the Ricci flow to prove Poincare conjecture at the beginning of its c
reation. He has all along promoted and organized such research until the
appearance of the Zhu and Cao's summary paper. Dr. Yau has un-obliterab
le meritorious contributions to the proof of the conjecture and the prog
ress of more general geometric analysis. Hamilton proposed the guiding p
rinciple, G. Perelman, which contributed the breakthrough to the carry o
ut of such guiding principle. However, the following two points are unde
niable facts:

Perelman's internet papers in 2002 and 2003 lack a full and detailed pro
of. So for several years and before the detailed proof of Zhu and Cao's
paper published on the Asian Journal of Mathematics, no import mathemati
cal experts can say the Poincare conjecture is correct. Zhu and Cao's th
ree hundred pages paper is the first clear and definite proof of the Poi
ncare conjecture. It gives a full, detailed proof (including their indep
endent original work) and contains a more general geometrization.

From the viewpoint of a standard mathematical evaluation, a mathematical
theorem is established only after it is fully proved. There should be n
othing less. I believe the solving of the Poincare conjecture should hav
e the following:

Hamiltons' guiding principle

Perelman's breakthrough

Zhu and Cao's full detailed proof.

Missing any one of the above three is not the final resolution of the Po
incare conjecture. Indeed, as for the big picture, people cannot solve t
he Poincare conjecture without Dr. Yau's support and his assembly of tal
ented students' fundamental work.

Xiaqi Ding

Member of Chinese Academy of Sciences

以前有人专门黑老丘，现在有人专门挺老丘，都很无聊

哈哈,丁夏畦在丘的网站上挂了几天就被拿了下来,怎么还有人有脸把它挂到这里来?丢人
这封信明显就是为曹朱抢功,曹朱都已经承认只是做解释工作,没有功劳了,这封信根本就是垃圾.怪不得丘无论怎么渴求支持都不敢挂这封信了.

"丁夏畦的信在丘的网站上挂了几天就被拿了下来"