Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atiyah and Singer to Share the 2004 Abel Prize

Posted by michael on from the you-cut-i-choose dept.

sbar writes "The 2004 Abel prize-winners have been announced.From the website: 'The Atiyah-Singer index theorem is one of the great landmarks of twentieth century mathematics, influencing profoundly many of the most important later developments in topology, differential geometry and quantum field theory. Its authors, both jointly and individually, have been instrumental in repairing a rift between the worlds of pure mathematics and theoretical particle physics, initiating a cross-fertilization which has been one of the most exciting developments of the last decades.'"

3 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. topology by cancerward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I only know Atiyah as the author of a textbook on commutative algebra, which was a graduate course I hated.

    There's a lot of incomprehension in the comments about higher mathematics. The fact that all four of the Clay Mathematics Institute Research Fellows this year are not native Americans indicates the truth of the AeA's comment on math teaching in American schools. I note that all of the fellows are in topology or closely related areas. My doctorate is in combinatorics, "the slums of topology", so I'm probably not qualified to explain the Atiyah-Singer theorem to y'all!

  2. Re:I Hear Ya by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However, you felt the need to push you voluptuous Swedish masseuse girlfriend away and post to Slashdot. Hmmmm.........

    --
    What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
  3. Re:Here you go, a layman's explanation. by saforrest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Usually wikipedia is extremely good, but the articles (some of them linked in comments here on slashdot) look liked they just cut and past crap out of a graduate text book without explanation.

    And that's probably even more true of PlanetMath.

    Theoretically, it's possible to weed through the hierarchy of definitions in either resource and figure out what was meant. Practically, you usually have to have advanced training in the subject to be able to put it all together.

    But, really, you can't blame either site too much for using technical language this way. They're not making the concepts deliberately unintelligable: the vocabulary is there because it's the most convenient generally-accepted means of accurately describing the concepts involved.

    It's comparatively rare that the general public, or even the general scientific public, takes an interest in conceptually advanced theorems such as this one. That's why there's little in the way of such resources.