Grigory Perelman Turns Down $1M Millennium Prize

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grigory Perelman Turns Down $1M Millennium Prize

Posted by kdawson on Friday July 2, 2010 @04:38AM from the can't-buy-me-love dept.

Kleiba writes "After turning down the prestigious Field Medal in 2006 for his contributions to mathematics, the reclusive Russian mathematician Grigory Perelman announced yesterday that he is rejecting a $1 million Millennium Prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute for solving the Poincare conjecture."

226 comments

Why by girlintraining · 2010-07-02 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, and do you know why? Because this guy believes that most advancements in science are cooperative efforts, and that recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest: It devalues the work of everyone else who contributed.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  He could just accept in and donate it to charity.
  That way it would be spent much better.
2. Re:Why by MightyMartian · 2010-07-02 04:44 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I think it's pretty clear that the guy suffers some severe abnormal psychology. Not uncommon among the brilliant.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Why by iamhassi · 2010-07-02 04:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest: It devalues the work of everyone else who contributed."
  
  He's got a good point, so why doesn't he take the money and pay all those he believes should be paid for their contribution? Perelman says his contribution is no greater than Richard Hamilton's who first suggested a pathway toward the solution. Why not give the money to him or scores of other great mathematicians?
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
4. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  He could just accept in and donate it to charity.
  The money already belongs to a charity.
5. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but... yesterday?!? Wasn't this news several MONTHS ago that he solved said conjecture and turned down the prize?
6. Re:Why by Peach+Rings · 2010-07-02 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The money would certainly be better left for a new prize that spurs more math research than donating it to some charity.
7. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This reminds me of people being accused of mental unstability for being republican under a monarchy, pro-western under Soviet communism, atheist under a theocracy, religious among atheists, and so it goes on.
  My training is mathematics. I don't have this guy's brain, but I sure hope that if, by some chance, I discover anything remotely as interesting as he has, I'll not sell out either. If every bright man did it for enjoyment of his discipline, life would be glorious.
8. Re:Why by Rivalz · 2010-07-02 04:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Either that or he has another theory that the monetary system flawed and fails to adequately characterize the effort = reward by the fact that Money is it's own reward or Money = More Money.
9. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think it's pretty clear that the guy suffers some severe abnormal psychology. Not uncommon among the brilliant.
  Why? The purpose of these prize monies is to ensure that brilliant researchers have the ability to spend their time on what they are good at doing instead of worrying about where they work or how much they get paid.
  If this guy feels that making a living is not conflicting with his work, why is it irrational to leave the money with the institute so it can help somebody else with less financial security/high student loans, etc.
10. Re:Why by Rivalz · 2010-07-02 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Taking from one Charity and giving to another Charity? Now that is just sick.
11. Re:Why by abbynormal+brain · 2010-07-02 04:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Because this guy believes that most advancements in science are cooperative efforts, and that recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest
  No, no, no, no, no. You got it all wrong. Please don't paint this with your opinionated brush about intellectual honesty.
  It's simple. What USE does he have for money in the 8th dimension?! (It's pronounced Big-boo-TAY)
  
  --
  L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
12. Re:Why by Crazy+Taco · 2010-07-02 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because this guy believes that most advancements in science are cooperative efforts, and that recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest: It devalues the work of everyone else who contributed.
  Cooperative efforts yes, but I disagree with the rest of your statement. The person who puts the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle together is the one who makes the work the rest did useful. So another guy pointed out the pathway? Yes, but he didn't solve the problem. His contributions may have been valuable, and he should be credited for what he did do, but starting something is not the same as finishing something. Starting something is not worth 1 million. Finishing something revolutionary is. Finding the answer that others, including the starter could not, is what make his work worth 1 million. And it doesn't devalue the work of those who's work he built on. It doesn't say they did nothing. It accurately values their contributions as good, but values his as the more revolutionary contribution, which it was.
  As the Clay institute even points out in the article, every mathematician follows in the work of others. Everyone does that. There's nothing to reward there. What not everyone does is tie all the pieces together into a revolutionary advance. THAT's why they want to award Perleman 1 million dollars and that's why they think he should accept it. And I agree, he should take the money as it is not a gift, but rather an earned reward for the hard, revolutionary work that he did.
  
  --
  Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
13. Re:Why by unr3a1 · 2010-07-02 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think it's pretty clear that the man is very humble and selfless. Since when is being these things considered to be abnormal? He should be honored and respected for his actions, not called abnormal.
14. Re:Why by quadelirus · 2010-07-02 04:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I thought it was because he was angry with some well known profs who he had talked to about his proof method and they had pretty much shut him out when he was a grad student or postdoc or something, and that because these awards are for leaders of the mathematical community, and he feels ostracized by the community, he won't participate.
  
  That said, the dude is being supported by his mother--last I checked--which, if true, in my mind means he ought to take the money and give it to his mom if he doesn't want it.
15. Re:Why by Peach+Rings · 2010-07-02 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  By turning down the prize he brings wide attention to the issue, which could actually change the situation.
16. Re:Why by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2010-07-02 05:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yes, but to be fair, this time they offered the prize to the OTHER eyebrow.
  
  --
  Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
17. Re:Why by bonch · 2010-07-02 05:06 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  So the guy should donate it back. This isn't hard to figure out.
18. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:08 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Taking from one Charity and giving to another Charity? Now that is just sick.
  Obviously you are not the US President.
19. Re:Why by IflyRC · 2010-07-02 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Its good to know nothing exploded.
20. Re:Why by Chyeld · 2010-07-02 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  He may be humble, he may be selfless. But he also dances to the beat of his own drum. For instance, when he came up with his solution, instead submitting it for review, he posted it online. And when he returned from America after meeting with a number of people and wowing them with his intellect, he dropped of the face of the Earth for a good portion of time. He quit his teaching job, is unemployed and living with his mother, refusing to even see anyone.
  He has 'issues'. They may be minor issues where he is still functional and simply has switched his focus from math to something else, or they may be major issues where we'll be calling him the next Bobby Fisher in a decade. But regardless, he has them.
21. Re:Why by morphotomy · 2010-07-02 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Or, in a manner more fitting with the first comment he could share it with people who he feels made important contributions, or their heirs if need be.
22. Re:Why by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2010-07-02 05:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Given the kind of money math researchers at the university level make, redistributing it to everyone who's contributed to his win would be donating it to charity.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
23. Re:Why by charliemopps11 · 2010-07-02 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Amen
24. Re:Why by jdgeorge · 2010-07-02 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  My training is mathematics. I don't have this guy's brain, but I sure hope that if, by some chance, I discover anything remotely as interesting as he has, I'll not sell out either. If every bright man did it for enjoyment of his discipline, life would be glorious.
  While on one hand, I totally agree with this, on the other hand, I think there's an adult-entertainment industry analogy just begging to be made here.
25. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Why would anyone even want to open that can of worms? Who gets how much? I suspect he just likes solving math problems, and would rather continue doing that, than deal with the bullshit of the "equitable distribution of a million Ameribux". The man doesn't want it, and as far as I'm concerned, doesn't have to explain why. If we take your suggestion, why not have CMI distribute it instead?
26. Re:Why by Colin+Smith · 2010-07-02 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  which could actually change the situation.
  lol. no.
  He'll be labeled an "eccentric genius" (aka kook) and the world will go on as before. Where've you been?
  
  --
  Deleted
27. Re:Why by severoon · 2010-07-02 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  His problem seems to be that Hamilton's work isn't being recognized as well, and more generally that the process used to assess the award is unjust. Why don't the key people at the Clay Mathematics Institute offer to sit down with him and hear what he has to say on the matter with an open mind about changing the way they work?
  They don't have to ultimately do anything, but here they have a smart guy telling them something is wrong with their organization at great personal cost to himself. Wouldn't that prompt you to take a look at yourself?
  
  --
  but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
28. Re:Why by nomadic · 2010-07-02 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't Perelman live with his mom? Doesn't she support him? Wouldn't the ethical thing be to accept the money for her sake?
29. Re:Why by Paradise+Pete · 2010-07-02 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  By turning down the prize he brings wide attention to the issue, which could actually change the situation.
  Change it in which way? Eliminate it, or distribute it in some equitable way? The person most able to distribute it equitably would be the one who put all the pieces together. So he could do that now and it would still draw plenty of attention to it.
30. Re:Why by TheLink · 2010-07-02 05:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think you (and they) do not understand Perelman, his mind does not work like that. They should stop annoying him by trying to give him the money.
  A better way to give Grigory Perelman 1 million dollars is to give a monthly allowance to whoever happens to be supporting him (and doing a good enough job of it).
  Maybe they could secretly[1] give the money to his mom and sister (maybe a small lump sum in addition to the monthly allowance). They were/are supporting him[2].
  He does not seem to be the sort of guy who can take good care of himself. I suspect that the people taking care of him allow him to focus on stuff like math, otherwise he might not be healthy enough to do so (or even alive).
  [1] He may not take it well if he knew.
  [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526782/Worlds-top-maths-genius-jobless-and-living-with-mother.html
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/grigory-perelman-rejects-1m-dollars
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
31. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  There should be a foundation managing and carefully investing the unreceived prize money for Perelman, however, just in the case he or his family needs the money eventually. In fact, if Perelman doesn't personally ever use the money, perhaps the foundation, lets call it the Perelman Foundation could provide some healthcare and means for communication for the "third world" mathematicians who are unlikely to get much support from the communities around them since their contribution to the society is not immediately "practical".
32. Re:Why by Maxo-Texas · 2010-07-02 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  ~ It's not my goddamn planet! Understand, monkeyboy?~
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
33. Re:Why by Anne_Nonymous · 2010-07-02 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Prizes for everyone! Yay!
34. Re:Why by divisionbyzero · 2010-07-02 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  He may be humble, he may be selfless. But he also dances to the beat of his own drum. For instance, when he came up with his solution, instead submitting it for review, he posted it online. And when he returned from America after meeting with a number of people and wowing them with his intellect, he dropped of the face of the Earth for a good portion of time. He quit his teaching job, is unemployed and living with his mother, refusing to even see anyone.
  He has 'issues'. They may be minor issues where he is still functional and simply has switched his focus from math to something else, or they may be major issues where we'll be calling him the next Bobby Fisher in a decade. But regardless, he has them.
  Uh, if you provided a proof for one of the most famous conjectures in the history of mathematics you might be smart enough to know that it would create a great deal of publicity and public scrutiny. Both of which can be anathema to certain kinds of thinkers.
35. Re:Why by Phoe6 · 2010-07-02 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  What is that analogy?
  
  --
  Senthil
36. Re:Why by clarkkent09 · 2010-07-02 05:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  That's complete and utter bullshit. So we don't need geniuses like him at all, right? After all they are just putting in the last piece of the puzzle in, any idiot can do that. Oh, btw, why didn't you do it?
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
37. Re:Why by TheLink · 2010-07-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think he sees the world the way you and most other people do (including the Clay institute bunch).
  To me this is the actual problem - trying to give 1 million dollars to Perelman is like giving a million dollars in $1 notes directly to a champion race horse.
  The people trying to do that are just being very stupid. What's the race horse going to do with a million dollar bills? They are just wasting their time and annoying the horse.
  If you genuinely want to benefit the race horse you use your brains and figure out how to use the 1 million dollars to help the horse in a different way.
  The last I know, he's living with his mother and sister[1] who aren't very well off, but probably are supporting him. So go figure...
  [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/grigory-perelman-rejects-1m-dollars
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
38. Re:Why by interval1066 · 2010-07-02 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  "By turning down the prize he brings wide attention to the issue, which could actually change the situation."
  What issue? What situation?Don't get me wrong, I mean, if the guy doesn't want the money he doesn't have to take it. But I'm seeing a bunch of hand wringing here about a nothing issue, in my opinion. If the guy doesn't want to be bothered, if he wants to be a nutty recluse and be left alone to work out more math problems and what not, great. But if he's turning down the money to make some kind of political point wouldn't it have been better to take the money then turn around and set up a fund to combat prize-giving, or whatever his beef is?
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
39. Re:Why by clarkkent09 · 2010-07-02 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's pretty clear that the man is very humble and selfless.
  
  I think it's pretty clear that he is not, and that's a good thing.
  
  "Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self." (Ayn Rand).
  
  He just gets his reward in a different way than most people would.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
40. Re:Why by jlp2097 · 2010-07-02 06:08 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  He should be honored and respected for his actions, not called abnormal.
  Yeah we should give him a prize or sth. Oh, wait...
41. Re:Why by Kell+Bengal · 2010-07-02 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  +1 sad truth
  
  --
  Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
  altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
42. Re:Why by Kell+Bengal · 2010-07-02 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And you know what? It's his right to do any of those things. Just because people want to make him a celebrity doesn't mean that he shares their plans. Maybe he doesn't care about being famous, maybe he cares for his mother, maybe he likes long times of quiet contemplation in which to think, rather than the incessant rat race din that accompanies pretty much any other mode of life?
  
  You know what? Maybe he's not the one with issues. Maybe we are.
  
  --
  Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
  altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
43. Re:Why by somersault · 2010-07-02 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  No - they should clearly be forced to make it closed source whether they like it or not!
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
44. Re:Why by J.J.+Dane · 2010-07-02 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  This solution would probably have the additional benefit of not resulting in him waking up one morning with his head cut off and the money being blown on vodka and coke by some russian mob type..
45. Re:Why by blincoln · 2010-07-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  He should be honored and respected for his actions, not called abnormal.
  I would also like to point out the he is in no way suffering a relapse of his previous trouble with holo-addiction. Working inside a simulation of Voyager instead of a conventional office is the most effective way for him to relax, and gives him an opportunity to bounce ideas off of the virtual crewmembers (who he is more comfortable interacting with than his real-world coworkers).
  
  --
  "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
46. Re:Why by twistedsymphony · 2010-07-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  ... and maybe we're all just meat-popsicles and none of this matters.
  
  --
  Collector's Edition
47. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 06:58 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It's hard, you know? The thing is to be able to think big thoughts, you have to turn some stuff off. You let go of things like nourishment or relationships in favor of your work so that you can use that extra space to squeeze in another algorithm. Maybe you ultra simplify a few routines in order free up those resources for your more important thoughts. Maybe you create a simple "survival" algorithm that allows you get dressed or shaved or to the office or to the grocer using the same small function set. But to an outsider you look like you are a mental case because the algorithm doesn't perfectly apply to each situation, so your clothes aren't quite right, and your walk to work takes a strange route. maybe you start to assign symlinks to certain objects for various values that are necessary for your work, which starts to hinder your ability to communicate with those around you. You try to avoid novel situations because you don't appreciate the distractions.
48. Re:Why by Martin+Blank · 2010-07-02 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  He toured the math lecture circuit for a while a few years ago with apparently little difficulty being in the spotlight, and then relatively suddenly shut himself away from not just the public, but pretty much everyone. This does suggest that something happened that altered his mental state. It's not necessarily bad: perhaps he found a possible solution to another problem and has simply locked himself away from the world to work on it.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
49. Re:Why by RobinEggs · 2010-07-02 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest
  Not always true. If he's just the guy who put it all together, then it's true that maybe he doesn't deserve a huge prize. Nevertheless, some people truly revolutionize a field (or multiple fields) almost by themselves; see Linus Pauling for the best example.
  
  Recognizing the last guy in a long line can sometimes be dishonest, but what if that line's been stalled for decades and this 'last guy in line' solves all the big problems or re-invents the field completely. Completely new schools of science happen every year these days, especially in neuroscience, physics, etc.; what if the prize winner invented an entire field of study?
  
  Everybody stands on someone's shoulder's in science, but some people are magnitudes more important and more productive than others and I don't believe stupid sidebars in textbooks or posthumous biographies show them enough gratitude for making the big leaps.
50. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 07:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If many steps are taken to solve a problem, all by different people, there is no reason that the final step was necessarily the most difficult.
  
  Perhaps whoever made the first step could have also made the last step if he'd had the intermediate steps to build on. Or if he'd had the first step to build on, while he was still young.
51. Re:Why by laejoh · 2010-07-02 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Maybe he wants euros instead?
52. Re:Why by mcgrew · 2010-07-02 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's pretty clear that the man is very humble and selfless. Since when is being these things considered to be abnormal?
  Welcome to the 21st century.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
53. Re:Why by evilbessie · 2010-07-02 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of Paul Erds. Mathematicians are by far the oddest scientists I have ever known, I work in a university which only does science and engineering so I have met quite a few.
54. Re:Why by geekoid · 2010-07-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's not why. Nice try, however.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
55. Re:Why by geekoid · 2010-07-02 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, that's why.
  The original poster just thinks he knows because that's what he thinks he would do.
  Idiots are running the stupid shop.
  You heard me.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
56. Re:Why by CptPicard · 2010-07-02 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  This reminds me of people being accused of mental unstability for being republican under a monarchy, pro-western under Soviet communism, atheist under a theocracy, religious among atheists, and so it goes on.
  Finnish-speaking (and holding onto your rights) under officially bilingual Finland...
  
  --
  I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
57. Re:Why by CptPicard · 2010-07-02 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with prizes is that you get them post fact. You may be a starving genius who solves some problem, but once you've solved it, it doesn't really push you any further that you get a prize for it.
  
  --
  I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
58. Re:Why by pi865 · 2010-07-02 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely clear. I could read this as quite egocentric. Who turns down a million bucks? The same kind of CEOs who wear cross trainers and dingy shirts, make their kids work like everybody else, and decide to live off the grid. self-righteous JERKS. /devils advocate
59. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  You and another poster (who compared Perelman to a racehorse) seem to assume that Perelman wouldn't be aware his mother was receiving additional income. While he may have different values than many people, it doesn't seem that we can safely assume that he is ignorant or stupid.
60. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Call it a hunch, but if someone rolled up to your front door and said "here is a bag full of one million dollars", you would NOT slam the door in his face, you'd take the money with barely a hesitation.
61. Re:Why by severoon · 2010-07-02 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think he sees the world the way you and most other people do (including the Clay institute bunch).
  That is the very point of consulting him: to get a different perspective. If I or the Institute already knew what he was going to say, I would not have suggested it.
  
  To me this is the actual problem - trying to give 1 million dollars to Perelman is like giving a million dollars in $1 notes directly to a champion race horse.
  Did you haughtily sniff after you typed this? I think you haughtily sniffed.
  
  If you genuinely want to benefit the race horse you use your brains and figure out how to use the 1 million dollars to help the horse in a different way.
  This is the first sensible thing in your post, except for the horrible and dehumanizing use of the term "horse" to refer to a brilliant mathematician. I have a completely new idea that has never been put to words before, a suggestion along the lines of what you have written here. I suggest, in the process of figuring out how to use that $1M, they begin by sitting down and talking to Perelman instead of presuming to know what's best for him.
  (I have intentionally written this post with extra snarkiness and parsed your post to cast you in the most negative light possible. I did not do this because I wanted to, but because it is what is expected of me here on /.. :-) )
  
  --
  but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
62. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  You are a 100% right. He's got some issues, and that's a well known fact. People need to do some background check before they post comments.
63. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  My industry is porn. I don't have this guy's large penis, but I sure hope that if, by some chance, I star in anything remotely as erotic as he has, I'll not prostitute myself either. If every well endowed man did it for enjoyment of his discipline, life would be glorious.
64. Re:Why by RivenAleem · 2010-07-02 11:16 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I bet he'd love a calculator.
65. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  errr, no. The creator might create for everybody to enjoy the result without requiring or expecting recognition. The egocentric might be lazy and passive expecting others to serve him. Much free software, software in the public domain, self produced artistic productions distributed on the net under a pseudonym, all defeat this superficial generalization of that unproven quote.
66. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  I've met him (at MSRI in 1993, when he was working on mostly Alexandrov geometry applied to Riemannian geometry) and yes, he is probably is crazy in some clinical sense. He smelled bad and had very very long dirty fingernails. Nice guy but I totally didn't want to sit near him in a seminar.
67. Re:Why by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-07-02 13:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This reminds me of people being accused of mental unstability for being republican under a monarchy, pro-western under Soviet communism, atheist under a theocracy, religious among atheists, and so it goes on.
  Perelman doesn't wash for weeks, doesn't comb his beard, and have fingernails and toenails longer than an average blonde. He may not be insane, but he's definitely not normal under any reasonable definition.
  (then again, this is Slashdot...)
68. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  He's abnormal because he won't start attention whoring even when pressured to.
  In presence of his example, attention whores then see themselves for what they are and don't like it.
  So they continue their attempts at forcing attention on the indiviual that makes them look bad in comparison.
69. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Because most of them lived in the 19th century and are, you know, dead by now.
70. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  That's right - anyone who believes in some form of collective-good or recognises the value of co-operation and collective gain over personal gain must not think like a human....
  Maybe, just maybe the man has a sense of decency and honour that won't allow him to accept the award at the expense of others.
  Simply taking the money and splitting it with those he thinks deserving would be a paltry work-around to the real issue. By refusing it he focuses some attention on the issue of those whose work he built on and without whom he may not have been able to solve anything. The fact that he and his family could probably do with the cash only serves to highlight his point even further.
  You could be right, he could be of the sort of mind that doesn't think of financial liquidity as important. Or it could a phenomenally selfless act of solidarity for his peers. Either way, the only way to move forward without royally insulting him is to consult him.
71. Re:Why by elocinanna · 2010-07-03 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  The last line or argument of a proof isn't always (or usually) the most important one as far as insight or bigness of ideas is concerned.
  If we simplify the proof process to each of the contributors writing a few lines of the complete proof for a conjecture, with the person who defined the axioms as the first contributor and the Perelmans as the last, there's no reason to measure Perelman's additions as any harder, more important or more impressive.
72. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Cooperative efforts yes, but I disagree with the rest of your statement. The person who puts the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle together is the one who makes the work the rest did useful.
  should the construction worker who lays the last brick on a building get all the money for constructing it?
73. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  Given the kind of money math researchers at the university level make, redistributing it to everyone who's contributed to his win would be donating it to charity.
  Oh? How much money is that, and what are you comparing it to?
  It's obvious that mathematicians at a university don't make as much money as C-level executives, or investors coming up with clever new schemes to make money on the stock exchange, or famous actors/writers/..., and so on.
  The median household income in the USA in 2007, according to Wikipedia (citing a census page that has since been taken offline, alas), was 50233 USD.
  Does the average mathematician employed at a university make significantly less than that? And I *am* talking about the average, not the worst-case of an unmarried person without children who just finished their PhD studies and is now employed for the first time in their life, or something like that.
  If you have any data on what mathematicians actually make, income-wise, I'd be interested.
74. Re:Why by alexandre_ganso · 2010-07-03 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  What, a MARRIED mathematician? That's a breakthrough.
75. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Someone pointed at the moon, other one suggested we could use rockets. It still took a lot of work to actually get there.
76. Re:Why by TheLink · 2010-07-03 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  He's very good at math. He's not very good at accepting prizes. Champion race horses are very good at winning races. They're not very good at accepting million dollar prizes.
  
  People like Ball have tried to convince him to accept the prize (without success). But if you have looked at his history you would know that he was going to refuse the prize and keep refusing it. Shouldn't be surprised when mathematicians like him say "No", they mean "No".
  
  So sitting down and talking to Perelman about the prize _AGAIN_ is just going to annoy him more. He is not interested in money, or fame, and he has made his opinions on that rather clear. To keep on about it is just not respecting him.
  
  They'd do more good if they'd just regularly sneak money to his mother or whoever he's living with at the time.
  
  Lastly, go ahead and be as snarky or ignorant or stupid as you want.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
77. Re:Why by alexandre_ganso · 2010-07-03 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  He was not communicating with them up to now. Before, he said that he wouldn't go to the ceremony. Now he just confirmed that he does not want the prize. Not breaking news, anyway.
78. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  No one said anything about the last step being the most difficult. The parent said it was the most revolutionary and the piece that made all the prior work useful.
  If the person who made the first step had of made the final step then they'd win the prize.
  The point the parent is making is there is no point rewarding all the previous contributors if the problem is never solved, because their work has no affect. Without the final piece being done the rest of the work is worthless. It would be like going to a job interview but leaving as soon as you got to the building. Or leading in a 500 lap race but stopping 490 laps in because you wanted to take a snooze. It is only upon completion of the final bit that the whole becomes important.
  Also, in the case of many mathematicians, they are paid to think and work on these things, even if they don't get the prize at the end. It isn't like they only get paid in prize money.
79. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Given the kind of money math researchers at the university level make, redistributing it to everyone who's contributed to his win would be donating it to charity.
  Huh? Established research mathematicians in the US earn 6 figure salaries.
  Someone of Perelman's stature could easily earn ~$200K in salary, and more when you add in funding from grants.
  This doesn't fit most people's profile of a charitable cause.
A true mathmetician by Pojut · 2010-07-02 04:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

There aren't too many of 'em left out there. I wouldn't be surprised if he had requested his name to be withheld from being publicly acknowledged.

--
Living With a Nerd
1. Re:A true mathmetician by Pojut · 2010-07-02 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, no...I was referring to someone who does math with the intent on solving problems, not gaining recognition.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
2. Re:A true mathmetician by JamesP · 2010-07-02 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Good point.
  But good work usually brings recognition in math, I mean, not many "pop mathematicians"
  I'm not sure how this plays out in the math field, as opposed to tech field, I'm more used to, where about 70% of works are irrelevant/dead ends/redundant/not even trying/etc.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
3. Re:A true mathmetician by Xest · 2010-07-02 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think there's ever been too many, but I think there's still probably more but there now than there ever has been. He did a great job, but is by no means unique, although certainly the way he has responded to his achievements is fairly unique in modern times.
  Don't forget that people like Andrew Wiles are still alive and kicking, who proved Fermat's Last Theorem in 1995 to give one example.
  I think the real problem is that mathematical and scientific achievements are just going ever more unnoticed amongst the latest big titted blonde who got rich and famous simply by being dumb, or the currnet expert at kicking a ball around a field, or the latest celebrity to retardedly kill themselves with a drug overdose or whatever.
4. Re:A true mathmetician by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2010-07-02 05:23 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  A true mathmetician ... There aren't too many of 'em left out there.
  *facepalm*
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
5. Re:A true mathmetician by hedwards · 2010-07-02 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The truly great ones tend to be, and I haven't seen any evidence that there's many of them out there at any given time. Mostly because most choose to go under the radar. But it does seem to require a certain amount of brokenness to the thalamus region of the brain to even get these sorts of ideas to begin with, and that tends to be somewhat counter the purpose of desiring recognition.
  
  Also, trying to gain recognition is counter the process as it tends to drive people to fence in their thinking to areas that are somewhat conventional, if you want to look at the conventional you're not going to discover things like relativity or most of quantum physics. It just doesn't work. Quantum physics actually makes a whole lot more sense than is generally accepted, but it requires a certain amount of brokenness to comprehend how things like the Copenhagen interpretation apply to everyday life. And why that's surprisingly important to not know when one wishes to function in society with other sentient beings.
6. Re:A true mathmetician by somersault · 2010-07-02 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Someone give parent $1,000,000! Or at least mod him Funny
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
7. Re:A true mathmetician by roman_mir · 2010-07-02 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  If he is a 'true mathmetician', then, obviously you are a true onomatologist, which is false, since Perelman is a mathematician, but it may also be true, if truly mathematicians are mathmeticians.
  Since you are both, True and False, you do not really exist.
  There, I am a true phlosifar.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
8. Re:A true mathmetician by geekoid · 2010-07-02 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Get recognition doesn't mean you can't also enjoy Math for Maths sake.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Didn't he reject the award repeatedly, over the past few years, every time he was asked? Why are people still annoying the poor guy?
1. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  he's got 99 problems but the poincare conjecture aint one
2. Re:Again? by quadelirus · 2010-07-02 04:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No. Multiple awards. Field medal first, now millennium prize.
3. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  He has mentioned before that he WOULD turn down the Millennium Prize. (Which, by the way, is misspelled in the headline. The letter n should be there twice. Editors, fix it?)
  
  Yesterday, he DID turn down the Millennium prize.
  
  So technically, it's a new event.
4. Re:Again? by bonch · 2010-07-02 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, "poor guy," getting offered millions of dollars but having to make the effort of turning it down instead of donating it to a good cause. I can't imagine that kind of hardship.
5. Re:Again? by somersault · 2010-07-02 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  And as others have pointed out, mooching off his mother at the same time.. poor woman :s Unless she's a bit off in the head too she'd probably quite like some more money, but also probably wouldn't want to upset her son.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
6. Re:Again? by Chris+Burke · 2010-07-02 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I have this perverse urge to call him up once a week, claiming to be from a different foundation seeking to give him an award for his contributions to math. Maybe get really elaborate, have different people calling him, set up websites for each of these foundations to make them seem legit. I bet we could really drive him up the wall.
  Heh. It's a good thing I'm not as big a jerk in real life as I am in my imagination. Or maybe it's just a good thing that I'm too lazy to pull off a prank like that. :P
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
7. Re:Again? by Ninja+Programmer · 2010-07-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think he would have been a better recipient for the last Nobel Peace Prize (at least we know *HE* would have had the good sense to decline it).
8. Re:Again? by put_it_down · 2010-07-02 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  sadism.
Get them out of the way by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:41 · Score: 0, Insightful

Common replies:
1. I'll take it!
2. He should just donate it to charity
3. It's insulting to other mathematicians for him not to take it
4. Give the guy his privacy
5. Did you see how he lives?
6. He should just give it to his family
7. He's dumb; with that money he could be a recluse for much longer
Glad we got those out of the way. You're welcome for time saved.
1. Re:Get them out of the way by WNight · 2010-07-02 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  People seem more amazed by the phrase "a million bucks" than it warrants these days. In the context of a mathematician it's a lot but it's not enough to enable him to fund his own university or whatever dream he would really need megabucks for.
  And he obviously doesn't want stuff or money. There are a lot of institutions who'd give it to him already, without whatever annoyance the award would entail.
  That said, I like #7. Once he buys the monkeys he doesn't have to say no directly...
The least he should have done... by Nadaka · 2010-07-02 04:42 · Score: 0, Redundant

Would be to have selected an appropriate charity to receive the award on his behalf.
1. Re:The least he should have done... by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-07-02 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  First off, charities can get quite political.
  This guy doesn't see of it as his money to determine where it ends up. He is just doing his part. He does not require a monetary award for his actions, he believes the benefit will come from him doing his work.
  He's not a mathmetician for his own benefit, so he's basically trying to say that by saying "Take the money out of the equation".
  Haha, see what I did there?
2. Re:The least he should have done... by ACS+Solver · 2010-07-02 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Forget charity - if he doesn't want the award, he could give it to his mother. Perelman isn't just great at math, he's also a weird guy and a hermit. In his case, he's living with his elderly mother whose main source of income is her pension, which is not a lot in Russia. He's being offered more than enough money to cover his mother's living and medicine costs, it would be a very prudent thing to do.
3. Re:The least he should have done... by NemoinSpace · 2010-07-02 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Stay out of this mom!
  -grigor
So... by dangitman · 2010-07-02 04:43 · Score: 1, Funny

If that million dollars is just sitting around doing nothing, can I please have it instead? I'm pretty good at adding.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  I got division down pat! The prize money is mine!
2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Why don't you shit in one hand and count with the other and see whi..... I don't know where I was going with this, I just want you to shit in your hand.
3. Re:So... by TravisO · 2010-07-02 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I think your specialty, if you do get the prize money, will be subtraction (from the pool of money). No adding will occur at all.
4. Re:So... by JamesP · 2010-07-02 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, now I get his problem!!
  It's 1 million dollars, that's like, just an integer...
  They should have presented him with an elliptic equation.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Aid Society! by cadience · 2010-07-02 04:47 · Score: 0, Redundant

1. Accept prize
2. Create trust fund or some other fancy-smancy-thingy with the money.(or, go straight to step 3)
3. Make the money available for the pursuit of mathematics knowledge.
4 Profit! (of world knowledge - improvements of collaboration, etc.)
1. Re:Aid Society! by Rockoon · 2010-07-02 04:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I was under the impression that he publicly stated why he wouldnt accept the money, and it was basically:
  
  "If I had that money then I would feel compelled to use it to do good charitable things, but what I really want to with my life is more math and as such, that money would be a burden"
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
2. Re:Aid Society! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  except the money is already in the hands of a "fancy-smancy-thingy" that makes it available for the pursuit of mathematics knowledge. Why on earth would he do it all over again?
3. Re:Aid Society! by dnahelicase · 2010-07-02 05:32 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  I was under the impression that he publicly stated why he wouldnt accept the money, and it was basically: "If I had that money then I would feel compelled to use it to do good charitable things, but what I really want to with my life is more math and as such, that money would be a burden"
  Seems fitting he might use that money to build a spacecraft, even if it does look like junk, and finally solve the big question about how long it actually takes to do the Kessel Run - and if it's measured in time or distance.
  Though I guess that would be if a physicist won the prize, not a mathematician
What's a Millenium? by gfreeman · 2010-07-02 04:47 · Score: 0, Troll

Is that anything like a Millennium?

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
1. Re:What's a Millenium? by LearnToSpell · 2010-07-02 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oh, you don't have the kdawson->English plugin installed, do you?
  
  --
  Haida Manga
2. Re:What's a Millenium? by The+Wild+Norseman · 2010-07-02 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  What's a Millenium?
  It's like a selenium, only smaller.
  
  --
  "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
he did it because by circletimessquare · 2010-07-02 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

he thinks he doesn't deserve the lion's share of the prize because there were others who contributed to his (their) achievement
the man has principles, that's for sure
all of our work, whatever we do, whether science, math, movies, music... we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, or on the shoulders of those working right next to us. often recognition for making a contribution is just a matter of luck, of being the one who accumulates the most media coverage for being at the tipping point when there was a tipping point to be had (as if anyone knows where or when the tipping points lie)
not that i'm denigrating grigory's contributions. HE is denigrating his own contributions. a genuinely humble man, even in the face of a cool million. he's more of an ascetic than i could ever be. he's married to his intellectual pursuits, he's foregone earthly indulgences because they will just get in the way of all he cares about doing. he knows that the money will ruin his mental discipline. locking himself in a room with his mind out of genuine intellectual passion
i admire him, i could never do that. i like the earthly indulgences too much

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:he did it because by beschra · 2010-07-02 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  According to TFA, he lives with his elderly mother. I wonder how she supports herself. You'd think $1 million would help her out a bit.
  
  --
  It is unwise to ascribe motive
2. Re:he did it because by emudoug42 · 2010-07-02 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  yeah, earthly indulgences are wicked sweet. You could buy a lot of waffle mix with one million dollars. about 592,000 lbs of waffle mix.
3. Re:he did it because by Midnight+Thunder · 2010-07-02 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  he thinks he doesn't deserve the lion's share of the prize because there were others who contributed to his (their) achievement
  Fair enough. Maybe everyone who has worked with him in some way should get together and agree that they would like him to take the prize, even if it is simply to help out his mother.
  There is another view point, that the best work sometimes comes from lack of resources, not with the abundance of.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
4. Re:he did it because by bonch · 2010-07-02 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps he could apply his math skills and divide the money among those who contributed. Or he could donate it to a good cause. This really doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve.
5. Re:he did it because by houghi · 2010-07-02 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  We used to stand on the shoulders of Giants. Now that is much harder as those shoulders are companies with copyrights and patents.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
6. Re:he did it because by eastlight_jim · 2010-07-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Slightly off topic I know but I've always liked that particular quote. For interest it's on the edge of the British £2 coin with a design on the reverse in concentric circles showing progression from the iron age to the modern time (Picture)
  I often wondered whether people have become smarter "recently" but have come to the conclusion that people have probably been of similar intelligence for many thousands of years but that the prior knowledge wasn't present meaning that progress was slow. If you imagine living in a society based on stones, the development of iron is a truly remarkable thing.
7. Re:he did it because by JSBiff · 2010-07-02 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  "he thinks he doesn't deserve the lion's share of the prize because there were others who contributed to his (their) achievement."
  If that's the case, wouldn't the logical solution be to convince the prize committee to split the prize with the other mathematicians, to give them medals also, and to split the money between them?
  As for the earthly indulgences thing, I guess I could see that, but that's also a problem easily dealt with. . . setup some sort of trust fund that only gives you a yearly stipend sufficient to cover his yearly expenses (rent on his mother's apartment, food, utilities, small allowance for clothes, etc).
  I don't know, it's hard to admire someone for doing something without really understanding *why* they did it. Lot's of people on here seem to claim admiration for the guy, just because he turned down the money, but I see neither vice nor virtue in accepting or rejecting the money. It just is what it is, and it is puzzling.
8. Re:he did it because by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, before you admire him 100%, talk to his mom.
  "I thought you had your own place! Did you ever think to ask if *I* needed money? Get a job! You know Sheryl has her eye on you..."
9. Re:he did it because by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2010-07-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  How do we know this? I thought he wasn't talking to anyone. One hypotheses is that he has some kind of grudge against several mathematicians. Another hypothesis was that he wasn't sufficiently being recognized for his talents. That one was put forth in the book Perfect Rigor.
  Does he even have a job? How is it supposed to be noble to turn down money when he's being supported by his parents?
10. Re:he did it because by Sir_Lewk · 2010-07-02 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Remember to save some of that money for syrup though.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I know how to solve this problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:49 · Score: 0, Redundant

On his behalf, I accept the money.
For solving this problem, I will gladly accept any additional prize money.
Too much paperwork... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:51 · Score: 0

...and the guy rather will spend this time doing his next research.
Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 04:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Millennium. Two Ns. From Latin "mille", thousand, and "annus", year. A thousand years.
If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
1. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
  I'd refuse the Millenium Prize, unless it came with a million dollars.
2. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Well, this is Slashdot.
3. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by BarryJacobsen · 2010-07-02 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
  Well, this is Slashdot...thought your estimate may be a little low.
  
  --
  Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
4. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
  
  ...which, incidentally, is the prize for excellence in management.
5. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  So the Latin word for Slashdot is Millenium, got it.
6. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by roman_mir · 2010-07-02 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Millennium. Two Ns. From Latin "mille", thousand, and "annus", year. A thousand years.
  If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
  - I am quite certain that Perelman's decision is actually based on the fact, that he thinks those are a thousand assholes, who decide who gets the medals/prizes and those who often unfairly get them.
  You are closer to the truth than you think, in Russian there is a saying: each joke has a little bit of a joke in it (which means that jokes often carry a large element of truth and a little bit of a funny side as well.)
  Good work.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
7. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  A thousand years.
  If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
  Would that work in a fantasy setting I wonder? There's always a beast with hundreds of eyes, or heads, or tentacles. What if you had to fight a beast with a thousand assholes?
  Could get messy.
8. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Millennium. Two Ns. From Latin "mille", thousand, and "annus", year. A thousand years.
  If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
  Actually without a long a anus is latin for "old woman"
9. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by manicb · 2010-07-02 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Beat me to it. As used in Carmina Burana - 14. In taberna quando sumus
10. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  mille and anus, which would be "a thousand old women".
  There, fixed that for you. We speak Classical Latin, not some ancient 17th century variant.
  (Captcha: Gravity. My, I'm sure Newton only wrote Classical Latin.)
11. Re:Millennium, not Millenium. by xant · 2010-07-03 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  You win an Internet. Just one, but it's a nice one.
  
  --
  It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Home school by glittermage · 2010-07-02 04:58 · Score: 1

Grigory Perelman is simply amazing. Wonder if he would home school my children in mathematics...
Ummmm by flipper9 · 2010-07-02 05:04 · Score: 0

I'd be willing to take it for him!
i think his elderly mother by circletimessquare · 2010-07-02 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

is pretty damn proud of him, for doing the math, AND rejecting the prize
his value system came from somewhere

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:i think his elderly mother by bonch · 2010-07-02 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why be proud of someone who refused helpful money? Think of the positive things he could have done by contributing it to a good cause, such as a math program for children. Refusing it and justifying it as some ethical behavior is actually the more self-centered, attention-seeking action to take.
2. Re:i think his elderly mother by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  He refused it and therefore left it with the Clay Institute, a charitable organization "Dedicated to increasing and disseminating mathematical knowledge". So already done.
3. Re:i think his elderly mother by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Think of all the bad things money has done to people. That should scare most people but it doesn't. Its scary how some of those who won many millions at the lottery and now pennyless and homeless 10 years later.
4. Re:i think his elderly mother by hedwards · 2010-07-02 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  He did the right thing, money wasn't the motivating factor for him and he's acknowledge that in his mind he made a minor contribution to the solution. It would've been unethical for him to take the money knowing that it wasn't a motivating factor rather than leaving it where it is to be awarded to somebody else that might be so motivated.
5. Re:i think his elderly mother by somersault · 2010-07-02 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's definitely the money's fault. Everyone who's ever become a millionaire has ended up homeless! Oh, wait..
  Besides - it's not surprising that the types of people who are dumb enough to waste money on lottery tickets, or lazy enough to want to just win a bunch of money instead of earn it, etc are going to make bad choices when they do have that money. I am surprised anyone could be dumb enough to end up homeless after being a millionaire, but I probably shouldn't be. Personally I'd buy a decent house and an even nicer car, figure out how much interest I'm getting and live off that interest, probably with a subsidy of a part time job..
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
6. Re:i think his elderly mother by nomadic · 2010-07-02 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  He did the right thing, money wasn't the motivating factor for him and he's acknowledge that in his mind he made a minor contribution to the solution. It would've been unethical for him to take the money knowing that it wasn't a motivating factor rather than leaving it where it is to be awarded to somebody else that might be so motivated
  
  He's jobless, letting his elderly mother support him. That's the only ethical lapse I see here in refusing to take the money.
Fields by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:08 · Score: 1, Informative

It's Fields, not Field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal
Not because it's a plural: Fields is a last name.
boo hoo... cry babies by Stumbles · 2010-07-02 05:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

This gave me a chuckle;

Carlson said. "But what he did is definitely not the way things are normally done."

And the only reason they took him seriously was from past work. So in other words; if someone cracks an astounding math problem and they don't know you; they will ignore you because you did not "follow their procedures"; even though your work might be the basis for faster than light travel or some current science fiction technology. What a bunch of self absorbed petty cry babies. They remind me of the scientists in HHGTTG for hanging the guy that created the infinite improbability drive; simply because they didn't like a smart-ass.

--
My karma is not a Chameleon.
1. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by Fnkmaster · 2010-07-02 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A bunch of people spent several years of their lives to validate that his solution was correct. The point is that those people wouldn't have bothered unless the source of the proposed solution was credible - because there are tons of crackpots who post all sorts of theories on the internet that aren't worth spending minutes let alone years of your life trying to validate or disprove.
2. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by Stumbles · 2010-07-02 05:29 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Thanks for supporting my point that they are self absorbed cry babies that will ignore a mathematical proof because you did not follow their procedures.
  
  --
  My karma is not a Chameleon.
3. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by deander2 · 2010-07-02 06:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  i assume you have a skill in something. let's call it skill X. as an expert in skill X, you presumably have a job employing skill X that takes some non-trivial percentage of your waking hours every week. and furthermore you also presumably dedicate the remaining non-work hours to some combination of hobbies, personal life, family, etc.
  now, are you, as an expert in X, willing to sacrifice a all (or at least a significant portion) of your non-work waking hours reading slashdot comments, fark, random blog entries, etc. in the hopes of by chance running into a proof of faster-than-light travel? despite the minentired-bogglingly overwhelming odds it'll mean you'll spend your every waking non-work hour in vain?
  no?
  cry baby.
  
  --
  http://kered.org
4. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  I suppose you are hard at work right now proving/disproving timecube.com using rigourous proofs, since you are so selfless...
  The fact is that there is a limited amount of time any one person has, and you have to filter out what you'll pay attention to.
5. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by joh6nn · 2010-07-02 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's rather specious logic. A surprising number of advancements have come from people who had no real credentials in their field. Occasionally, from people who had no real credentials, period. That you've never heard of someone, or that they have no previous experience that you can point to, does not necessarily mean they don't know what they're talking about. The only way to be sure they're full of it, is to systematically prove it. Otherwise, you're just making an argument from authority: "Well, I've never heard of this guy, and he hasn't been to Harvard. Clearly he's a charlatan." If you feel like someone's submission is flimsy, but you don't think there's any benefit in taking the time to prove it, say so. But don't just fall back on "Well, he has no credentials." That's just a cop-out, and you know it.
  
  --
  i am a loser geek, crazy with an evil streak, yes i do believe there is a violent thing inside of me.
6. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by SleazyRidr · 2010-07-02 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, because it takes YEARS to prove or disprove these things, no one wants to waste their time on something that is obviously wrong.
  We've been doing this mathematics thing for a while now, and we're pretty good at it.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
7. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by tibit · 2010-07-02 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Timecube.com does not offer anything that can be proven/disproven. There's just a lot of words, but nothing of any use. We're not talking about that level of kookery here.
  I think the really time-consuming kookery is one that looks, on the surface, genuine. Something like the Bogdanov Affair, where you have to wade through some deep maths in order to figure things out.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
8. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  A surprising number of advancements have come from people who had no real credentials in their field.
  
  Then obviously, the system in place is not actually preventing laymen from publishing results when they are correct.
9. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by nacturation · 2010-07-02 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for supporting my point that they are self absorbed cry babies that will ignore a mathematical proof because you did not follow their procedures.
  I suppose you think James Randi is a self-absorbed cry-baby because in order to participate in his $1 million challenge you need to follow his procedures?
  Or maybe the owners of Slashdot are self-absorbed cry-babies because they expect you to follow a specific set of procedures in order to sign up for an account and post a reply to an article? Perhaps you're just a self-absorbed cry-baby because the world doesn't work the way you think it ought to?
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
10. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by adamofgreyskull · 2010-07-02 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  If something is "obviously wrong" then it shouldn't take "YEARS" to disprove it, should it?
  Also...wouldn't any mathematical proof that would take "YEARS" to disprove still have some value? Perhaps showing new approaches to a problem?
11. Re:boo hoo... cry babies by Reservoir+Penguin · 2010-07-07 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Mathematics (and CS) is one of the few fields where you do not need an expensive *formal* education to produce results. SOme books and a pensil is all you need to get into the field. But in my experience (my fater in law is a well known mathematician in the field of optimization) professional mathematicians are some of the mist vile and jelous people and will back stab and degrade you if they feel threatened by your results. They will heappil use the formal exuse of not hsvibng the right degrees and not following some process to mow you down.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
He by JustOK · 2010-07-02 05:11 · Score: 1

He thinks they're offering him a milli-dollar. Good in math, not so good in English comprehension.

--
rewriting history since 2109
1. Re:He by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:42 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Did you RTFA?
  
  Speaking in fluent English, he wowed his math colleagues and, after returning to Russia, continued to communicate via e-mail with some about his work.
2. Re:He by JustOK · 2010-07-02 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Did you RTFA?
  No, why? What did it say?
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
because... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Taxes would be a bitch. It's better to not exchange money in the first place.
1. Re:because... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  You must be thinking about USA.
  Russian taxes are not progressive. Russia uses flat tax system. So no, taxes would not be a bitch, especially compared to USA taxes.
2. Re:because... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  some vs none.
  some is a bitch.
Jerk by oldhack · 2010-07-02 05:13 · Score: 0

He should have at least twitted his rejection. Or update his facebook. What a jerk.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
1. Re:Jerk by hedwards · 2010-07-02 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's tweeted you twit.
2. Re:Jerk by oldhack · 2010-07-02 05:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Shut up, twat.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Scholarship fund instead? by xirtam_work · 2010-07-02 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about they put the prize money into a scholarship fund. Surely he couldn't object to this. He could outline the type of benefactor he'd like to receive a stipend from time to time and leave the actual selection to a committee formed by associates of the Millennium Prize board.
1. Re:Scholarship fund instead? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Considering the current prices for education, it wouldn't help too many of people, but still it is a good idea.
2. Re:Scholarship fund instead? by houghi · 2010-07-02 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  If he accepted the prize, he would be allowed to do whatever he wanted with it. If he spends the money on whatever he would have accepted the prize. So even if he would not get the money, by even remotely deciding what the money would be used for, he would have accepted the price. Perhaps only in spirit.
  He does not WANT the prize. It does not matter if it is only a thank-you note or a million dollar bank account.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
3. Re:Scholarship fund instead? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  What is this thing with the new generation & handouts? He rejected the prize and didn't think it appropriate to put it into a scholarship fund....there you go. You must be an American because that is what the new generation here seems to be good at. Sticking their hand out.
Freedom... by markisses · 2010-07-02 05:14 · Score: 1

The last free man! Just for pure mathematics.... Grigori you are just a God....
Donate it? by DavidD_CA · 2010-07-02 05:20 · Score: 0, Redundant

I haven't RTFM, but couldn't he have taken the money and donated it to further advance math?
Give it to some school or program for children? Or started a non-profit of his own with some good seed money?
I dunno.

--
-David
anything can be selfish by circletimessquare · 2010-07-02 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

rejecting the money is selfish, accepting the money is selfish, giving it to his mom is selfish, keeping it from his mom is selfish, etc. it all depends upon the motivation
all that i am saying is that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so therefore whatever his motivation for rejecting the money, his mother probably shares the same motivations in her personality. therefore it is likely that she would be happiest with him rejecting the money. giving the money to his mother may very well be the absolute worst thing in the world he could ever do to his mother
so don't assume that your perspective is the only perspective that matters in situations like this, especially since you are not even in the situation. people are different, potentially very different from your own personality

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
He can now answer another famous question - by RevWaldo · 2010-07-02 05:21 · Score: 3, Funny

"If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
1. Re:He can now answer another famous question - by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-04 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  "Smart enough not to need to be" ?
While we're all nitpicking... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2010-07-02 05:25 · Score: 4, Informative

it's Field*s* Medal. Named after the Canadian mathematician, John Charles Fields.
Not Field Medal.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
1. Re:While we're all nitpicking... by topcoder · 2010-07-02 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Just be happy that he didn't write Aristotle Medal.
you would spend it on waffle mix? by circletimessquare · 2010-07-02 05:25 · Score: 1

what are you, some sort of imbecile child?
grow up
he should spend it on ice cream, duh

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Intellectual honesty... by divisionbyzero · 2010-07-02 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's an amazing demonstration of intellectual honesty. I'm in no way denigrating his contribution but the essential breakthrough was made by Hamilton's use of the Ricci Flow. However he's no doubt brilliant and the beauty of his solution seems to be enough for him.
1. Re:Intellectual honesty... by divisionbyzero · 2010-07-03 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody rated this post flamebait. I think we need an IQ test before people are allowed to moderate.
Am I the only one cynical enough... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:26 · Score: 0

... to have had the reaction - "Oh hell, they just chose him KNOWING he'd reject it, so they could save themselves a million bucks!!"
Re:more likely by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:28 · Score: 0

he is too busy raiding with his guild...
its obvious.
Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:32 · Score: 0

Refusing it and justifying it as some ethical behavior is actually the more self-centered, attention-seeking action to take.
Oh, so you're a fucking American. What a shock.
Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:41 · Score: 0

Less money to pay out equals more money for the chairman of the board.
Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 05:44 · Score: 0

The endowment's portfolio lost so much value over the past few years that they knew they had to cut back...so they gave the prize to someone who they knew would not accept it. All goes according to plan...
and that's the big story of this century: by circletimessquare · 2010-07-02 05:52 · Score: 1

the end of intellectual property
because if the concept of IP is not discredited, corporations will strangle the cultural space, and intellectual progress will cease

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1 million is nothing by negrace · 2010-07-02 06:28 · Score: 1

Note how poor scientist are. He spent 10+ years of his life on this, and all he is getting is 1 million $$. That's just regular prof's salary of several years. Not really that impressive.
Perhaps a modest change to his M.O. would do - by RevWaldo · 2010-07-02 06:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Narrator: Meanwhile, at the International Conference of Mathematics...

(In a oak-walled conference room, about two dozen bearded and bespeckled men gathered around a long table, cluttered with papers, a large blackboard on the wall full of figures, cross-outs and erase marks. The man at the center of the table stands from his chair and wearily proclaims:)

Conference Leader: Well, gentlemen, I fear a solution to the Riemann hypothesis eludes us once again...

(Suddenly, a masked man bursts through the conference room doors.)

All: It's the Lone Mathematician!

LM: Gentlemen, I believe this is what you're looking for! (Slaps a paper on the desk. They all look down at it, then look up astonished)

All: A solution to the Riemann hypothesis! BUT HOW!?

CL (holding up the paper): So elegant and precise, and yet so simple! You're a man of true genius!

LM: I'm merely standing on the shoulders of giants, gentlemen.

(The Lone Mathematician gracefully leaps onto a nearby windowsill and steps out. They all run to the window and look down, seeing that he has jumped onto the back of a horse in the courtyard.)

LM (riding off): Hi Ho Sliderule, Away!!

CL: Who was that masked man? I wanted to thank him...

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Not that smart. by MaWeiTao · 2010-07-02 06:37 · Score: 1

If this guy were smart he'd take the money and use it to sustain himself in a way that would completely enable him to be free to pursue his interests. If it bothers him that much just take the damn money and donate it to some charity.
Say what you will, I think him refusing the money comes down to him being eccentric. Perhaps in his mind he's decided he's not going to live by human conventions. I'll give him credit in that regard. People are constantly being told, "be yourself". But what that actually means is be like everyone else, go mountain climbing and have a prolific nightlife. If anyone is a case study in free will it's this guy.
That said, I can't help but think that this guy would be more productive if he weren't so reclusive and eccentric. I'm reminded of those geniuses who end up spending their lives as a janitor or something. They don't owe anything to anyone. But at the same time I feel like it's a complete waste of their abilities. I tend to think if they were as smart as they supposedly are they would have taken advantage of their abilities. At least Perelman has these guys beat in that regard.
1. Re:Not that smart. by notknown86 · 2010-07-02 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  That said, I can't help but think that this guy would be more productive if he weren't so reclusive and eccentric.
  Said the guy who has likely achieved little to nothing of value to humanity at large to the Fields Medal and Millennium Prize winner who has made ground-breaking achievements in his field.
  
  Idiot.
Perelman by turkeyfish · 2010-07-02 06:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perelman's character and sense of personal integrity is as good as his mathematics, if not better!
Its a bit of a shame he chooses to be so reclusive as so many of us could learn from this man.
If by turkeyfish · 2010-07-02 06:48 · Score: 1

only I could have the mathematical talent of Perelman, I would be more than happy to live with all the petty name-calling and characterizations anyone might wish to make.
Just think of what beauty he must see that the rest of us miss.
Aspergers? by slagell · 2010-07-02 06:51 · Score: 0, Redundant

Maybe he just has Aspergers like half the great mathematicians and doesn't want to go to an ceremony or talk to any people.
Would make a nice retirement fund. . . by JSBiff · 2010-07-02 07:10 · Score: 1

$1 Million isn't what it used to be, but I'd still like to have it. I mean, if you got a Prof's Salary (and let's face it, if he chose to, this guy could have a *very* well salaried position at any University in the world he chose), he could have $1 Million, plus probably another 2 Million in salary over the course of 10 or 20 years. Instead, he turns down the 1 Million and *quits* the teaching position he had previously at a Russian university. Not sure how he plans to live on no salary and without taking the prize money.
1. Re:Would make a nice retirement fund. . . by potat0man · 2010-07-02 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Who needs $ when you have math?
  
  ...and an elderly mother with a pension.
2. Re:Would make a nice retirement fund. . . by p1esk · 2010-07-02 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  While giving lectures in America for a couple of years, he made enough money to last for the rest of this life (his words). Besides, he has his own 1 bedroom apartment in St Petersburg, but simply prefers to live with his mother.
Well then... by bmo · 2010-07-02 07:29 · Score: 1

Give it to his elderly mother, who is taking care of him.
She deserves it.
--
BMO
1. Re:Well then... by notknown86 · 2010-07-02 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the elderly mother also values integrity more than than the prize money (which could well have been offered to her, for all we know). It's not uncommon for children to inherit the values of their elders.
  
  Either way, it's none of our damn business, we should all focus on our own efforts to make a contribution to society, rather than pass judgement on the morality of those who obviously have.
2. Re:Well then... by bmo · 2010-07-02 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  As if sponging off your mom and refusing money to make her life easier is not a form of elderly abuse.
  What the fuck is wrong with you?
  --
  BMO
Mod parent insightful by fyoder · 2010-07-02 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah we should give him a prize or sth. Oh, wait...
Has anyone tried presenting him with a simple bouquet of flowers?

--
Loose lips lose spit.
1. Re:Mod parent insightful by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  Flowers? You want to give a man... flowers? Of all the simple gifts in the world to give another man, that sounds really gay.
2. Re:Mod parent insightful by alexandre_ganso · 2010-07-03 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  I like receiving flowers from my girls. What's with that?
Ah, he's probably... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 08:23 · Score: 0

...just using PI to crack the stock exchange - and it worked out pretty well - or he just deciphered the Torah or both ;=)
Timing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 08:55 · Score: 0

The proof was "published" in 2003. The Fields medal was offered in 2006 and now this one.
The proof addresses an area of N-dimensional math where dimensions 2,4,5,6,7,8+ were solved but dimension 3 remained unsolved. Since we live in a 3 dimensional world plus time we seem to have the greatest difficulty characterizing our our visible environment. Can't see the forest for the trees?
Isn't this old news? by Benfea · 2010-07-02 09:02 · Score: 1

I could swear there was already a posting on this a while back. Not that my memory is worth anything.
blag by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 09:11 · Score: 0

old news is old
No relation to (THE) Yakov Perelman... by lumenistan · 2010-07-02 09:32 · Score: 1

His father's name is Yakov Perelman, but not THE Yakov Perelman. Although when he was a kid, his dad gave him a copy of Physics for Entertainment.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Perelman:

He is not related to the Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman, who was born in 1966 to a different Yakov Perelman. However, Grigori Perelman told The New Yorker that his father gave him Physics for Entertainment, and it inspired his interest in mathematics.
Small freakin' world.
1. Re:No relation to (THE) Yakov Perelman... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  His father's name is Yakov Perelman, but not THE Yakov Perelman. Although when he was a kid, his dad gave him a copy of Physics for Entertainment.
  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Perelman:
  
  He is not related to the Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman, who was born in 1966 to a different Yakov Perelman. However, Grigori Perelman told The New Yorker that his father gave him Physics for Entertainment, and it inspired his interest in mathematics.
  Small freakin' world.
  Yakov did not Yakov and so the story of Grigory began.
leave the guy alone by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-02 10:42 · Score: 0

or else banff
Put the cash through his letter box by Rogerborg · 2010-07-02 19:38 · Score: 1

If he wants to burn it, or eat it, or throw it out the window, that's his business.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-03 00:53 · Score: 0

First off, isn't this incredibly late? like two years late?
Now, for not taking the money, keep in mind that he lives in Russia. Anyone who publicly receives a million dollars immediately becomes a target for local crime (Moscow residents excluded). If you want examples of 'crime' in Russia, just look at lenta.ru every few days...Something crazy (like cops getting caught selling someone into slavery) will come up sooner or later.
Even if you accept the prize and donate it to charity, you've still been marked. No thug is going to believe that you don't actually have [a whole ton of money] hiding in your house if you just 'give' away a million.
Given the community that he lives in, staying away from the money is probably best (for him, for his family, for friends).
Cross post! by justthinkit · 2010-07-04 04:59 · Score: 1

It's hard, you know? The thing is to be able to think big thoughts, you have to turn some stuff off. You let go of things like nourishment or relationships in favor of your work so that you can use that extra space to squeeze in another algorithm. Maybe you ultra simplify a few routines in order free up those resources for your more important thoughts. Maybe you create a simple "survival" algorithm that allows you get dressed or shaved or to the office or to the grocer using the same small function set. But to an outsider you look like you are a mental case because the algorithm doesn't perfectly apply to each situation, so your clothes aren't quite right, and your walk to work takes a strange route. maybe you start to assign symlinks to certain objects for various values that are necessary for your work, which starts to hinder your ability to communicate with those around you. You try to avoid novel situations because you don't appreciate the distractions.

I just saw this posted in the WoW forum. What a douche!

--
I come here for the love