Slashdot Mirror
New Yorker on Perelman and Poincaré Controversy
b4stard writes "The New Yorker has an interesting article on the recent proof of the Poincaré conjecture and the controversy surrounding it. This is a very nice read, which, among other things, sheds some light on what may have motivated Perelman in refusing to accept the Fields medal." From the article: "The Fields Medal, like the Nobel Prize, grew, in part, out of a desire to elevate science above national animosities. German mathematicians were excluded from the first I.M.U. congress, in 1924, and, though the ban was lifted before the next one, the trauma it caused led, in 1936, to the establishment of the Fields, a prize intended to be 'as purely international and impersonal as possible.'"
So tell us you really think he's LESS famous as a result of this than he would have been had he just accepted the award.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I'm not saying he did the wrong thing, or did it cynically, or didn't do it out of love for the work. I'm just saying each year's award winners tend to be a nine-days wonder or less, while this story makes the wonder last longer... probably worth 500 slashdot comments instead of merely 50 :).
If you ask me, Salinger is more famous for being a recluse... hiding in plain sight probably works better.
Fame? Would he have gotten an article in the New Yorker by quietly accepting? Not that he's purposefully trying to build a mystique of genius, but if he were, this is the way he'd do it.
Maybe fame of a different sort. He's saying that by accepting the prize and staying in the community, he'd either have to stick up for what he views as his integrity and contribution by calling Yau out on his later proof, or he'd essentially be confirming it through inaction. He did not want to be embroiled in this kind of political mockery of mathematics, so he decided to remove himself from it. In doing so I guess he has called attention to his reasons, but he's removed from the conflict.
Honestly, this guy is not a glory hog, from all accounts I've heard. If you read the article, the New Yorker spent a week leaving him messages only to find out in the end he hadn't left to check his mail in that week. He's not holding press conferences, there aren't any photo ops, he's not going out of his way to get coverage. If he wanted the press he'd have gone to all the publications calling Yau out as a fraud and stirring up a big ruckus. That's the more interesting story.
http://mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Mathe matics&gid=10840706&ftype=0
I'll paste just the English version here so everybody can have a look:
====
From Dan Stroock at MIT:
Clarification
I, like several others whom Sylvia Nasar interviewed, am shocked and angered by the article which she and Gruber wrote for the New Yorker. Havingseen Yau in action during his June conference on string theory, Nasar ledme to believe that she was fascinated by S-T Yau and asked me my opinionabout his activities. I told her that I greatly admire Yau's efforts tosupport young Chinese mathematicians and to break down the ossifiedpower structure in the Chinese academic establishment. I then told her that I sometimes have doubts about his methodology. In particular, I toldher that, at least to my ears, Yau weakens his case and lays himself opento his enemies by sounding too self-promoting. As it appears in her article, she has purposefully distorted my statementand made it unforgivably misleading. Like the rest of us, Yau has hisfaults, but, unlike most of us, his virtues outweigh his faults.Unfortunately, Nasar used my statement to bolster her casethat the opposite is true, and for this I cannot forgive her.
====
From Michael Anderson at Stony Brook:
Dear Yau,
I am furious, and completely shocked, at what Sylvia Nasar wrote. Her quote of me is completely wrong and baseless. There are other factual mistakes in the article, in addition to those you pointed out. I have left her phone and email messages this evening and hope to speakto her tomorrow at the latest to clear this up. I want her to remove this statement completely from the article. It serves no purpose and contains no factual information; I view it as stupid gossip unworthy of a paper like the New Yorker. At the moment, the print version has not appeared and so it might be possible to fix this still. I spent several hours with S. Nasar on the phone talking about Perelman, Poincare , etc but it seems I was too naive and I'm now disgusted in believing this journalist would report factually. I regret very much this quote falsely attributed to me and will do whatever I can to have it removed. I will keep you informed as I know more.
Yours, Michael
====
More clarification from Anderson:
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, its 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 distortedfrom some remarks I made to her in a quite different context; I made itexplicit 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 theimplication that Tian at MIT was the first to invite Perelman to the USto 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 focusses 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 opportun
Yau said:
50% Hamilton
25% Perelman
30% Yau & Co.
=
105%
Yes, Yau actually said that.
'As for Yau, Perelman said, "I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest."'
Perelman doesn't really want anything to do with the mathematical community as a result of Yau's politiking.
TFA does not paint a very pretty picture of Yau.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
To many of us involved in the field, this article is right on. Yau has done great work and remains a dynamic force in the field. But as he has advanced from his prime years he has focused more and more on administration rather than mathematics, in an attempt to stay relevant (not unheard of in the sciences and maths). The article accurately portrays him as a man who now finds reward in the political machinations of his field rather than the joy of discovery.
He remains brilliant and is adept at his new focus, which makes him dangerous. The Fields Medal and Harvard platform give him a lot of power to retaliate against people he perceives as enemies to his legacy. And he has a chip on his shoulder...ok he's always had a chip on his shoulder but in the old days he'd satisfy it by the maths, not by this sort of dirty pool.
I for one would never speak up against him with my name signed to it. I don't blame (or envy) Mike or Dan for the damage control they're faced with now that what they thought were private remarks have been made public. But it doesn't change the accuracy of the story. Off the record there are few in the field who would disagree with saying that Yau and his students are making an unwarranted grab for credit that is not theirs. But confronting Yau on the record is not smart unless you've got a Fields and Ivy professorship yourself (fat chance that for me).