Science's Breakthrough of the Year

johkir writes "Last year, evolution was the breakthrough of the year; We found it full of new developments in understanding how new species originate. But we did get a complaint or two that perhaps we were just paying extra attention to the lively political/religious debate that was taking place over the issue, particularly in the United States. Perish the thought! Our readers can relax this year: Religion and politics are off the table, and n-dimensional geometry is on instead. This year's Breakthrough salutes the work of a lone, publicity-shy Russian mathematician named Grigori Perelman, who was at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences until 2005. The work is very technical but has received unusual public attention because Perelman appears to have proven the Poincaré Conjecture (Our coverage from earlier this year), a problem in topology whose solution will earn a $1 million prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute. That's only if Perelman survives what's left of a 2-year gauntlet of critical attack required by the Clay rules, but most mathematicians think he will. There is also a page of runner-ups. Many of which have been covered here on Slashdot."

Comments

Science and Mathematics are Not the Same

[pz]

While this is a wonderful recognition of some fantastic work, the Slashdot editors should bear in mind that science and mathematics are not the same thing. To call solving the Poincarre Conjecture a breakthrough in Science (breakthrough of the year, no less!) is disrespectful to both scientists and mathematicians.

There have been some breakthroughs in Mathematics that were simultaneously notable in Science (solving the 4 Colors Problem, for example, the first time a computer was used to experimentally and exhaustively validate the results of a theorem), but these are rare. To the limits of my mathematical knowledge, this was not one of them, despite it being remarkable work.

Re:Science and Mathematics are Not the Same

[Anonymous Coward]

Solving the 4 color conjecture was not notable in science, it was notable for showing that computers are useful tools for doing serious mathematics(even though many mathematicians didn't believe this even after it had been demonstrated). Computers also happen to be useful tools for doing serious science, but this had already been demonstrated. In popular works there is no distinction between science, mathematics, and engineering... and in many cases public policy or politics either. This is unfortunate, and also disrespectful, but it should be noted that you will find people in these fields who exploit this blurring together when it is to their advantage.

Re:Religion and politics off the table? I think no

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

So what if the Cathar's were right and that the Catholic Bible was simply a political tool of the Papacy to bring the incorrect version of God's word to man.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Religion has always been a political tool. It's a convenient mechanism used to control people, and has worked beautifully for thousands of years. If you need an example, see the current U.S.A.

Re:The Origin of Species...

[fafalone]

The Origin of Species is not the absolute complete flawless manual for evolution. There's been plenty of huge breakthrough in evolution that weren't even touched on in Darwin's book. The biggest one is tracking evolution through molecular genetics; the mechanism of what Darwin observed. Not to mention models for evolution like punctuated equilibrium (long periods of little evolution, short periods of rapid change in response to some major change in environment)... that was not part of Origin. Major breakthroughs recently have come in looking at evolutionary pathways for certain species or traits, way beyond the book.
I hope the funny mod captures the intent of the parent, but nonetheless I thought I would post this since peoples abhorrent ignorance of evolution never ceases to enrage me.