Russian Refuses Math's Highest Honor

Proving that will be left as an exercise for the reader.

maybe a bit too humble.

From other articles I've read, he seems to be in a huge depression over what happened to him before and has little self worth, making him "a bit too humble" like ncy111 said. I feel bad for him.

"His present predicament stems from a rancorous split with a leading Russian mathematical institute, the Steklov Institute in St Petersburg, which failed to re-elect him as a member in 2003. Dr Perelman, 40, was made to feel an 'absolutely ungifted and untalented person', a friend said. He suffered a crisis of confidence and cut himself off.

Interviewed in St Petersburg last week, Dr Perelman insisted he was unworthy of all the attention, and was uninterested in his windfall. 'I do not think anything that I say can be of the slightest public interest,' he said.

'I am not saying that because I value my privacy, or that I am doing anything I want to hide. There are no top-secret projects going on here. I just believe the public has no interest in me.'

Dr Perelman also said he had no interest in self promotion. 'I do not regard it as a positive thing. I realised this a long time ago and nobody is going to change my mind,' he said.

'Newspapers should be more discerning over who they write about. They should have more taste. As far as I am concerned I can't offer anything for their readers.'"

He doesn't fall into the category he speaks about (at least not to me), but he makes a great point about the people that newspapers are writing about.

-_-

Actually, he looks like Silas Adams from Deadwood.

I <3 deadwood

"Hey ladies, what's long, hard, and stands up against all scrutiny?"

Excatly.

He will not go down in the history books our children will read in primary or secondary school... but I bet you he will have lots of valuable notes and conjectures and proofs that will be discovered after his death... he will be more akin to Fermat (reluctance to publish works, etc) than Einstein (did not mind the attention).... not to mention... This is mathematics... it is far more important than physics :-D

I agree with BMS above. How many mathematicians can you name who solved hugely intractable problems? Who knows the guy who proved Fermat's theorem? Who knows Gauss or Euler or Godel or Hilbert?

All true geniuses are a bit on the reclusive or, dare I say, weird side.

And this is a real misconception. Neils Bohr was an athlete and considered very likable, easy-going, and social. Einstein was quirky but not a recluse. Feynman (and most of the rest of the Manhattan project) was known for his big personality. John Wheeler--one of the best physicists not to win a Nobel Prize--was the sort of guy you'd never even guess was a theoretical scientist. Now, sure, some geniuses are really out there and perhaps at a higher rate that the average population, but perhaps that's only because they're allowed to be. The point is, the genius stereotype is mostly a myth but guys like Perelman keep it alive and popular.

Wyles solved FLT :-)... oh and he was slightly incorrect the first time and fixed it.

Yep, and he first "published" his work by silently filling a lecture hall of blackboards, corner to corner, one day in a lecture for his graduate students. 300 pages, man. 300 pages. ;-)

I think what the man is saying is that it should not be about him at all, it's not about him, it's about the mathematics.

Why? His achievements speak for him. Why does he need to celebrate mediocre? What is antisocial to him? He seems truly free, yet contributed to our planet. Is that weird? Please let him be.

I think the person you quoted was trying to get at how he can further the field of mathematics by sharing his genius, insight, and expertise. It's not about celebrating mediocrity, but helping future generations of mathematicians realize greater potential than they probably would've without his input. Science is about sharing wisdom and contributing knowledge to humanity. He can do this to a much greater extent than now by setting up scholarships, spending time with up-and-coming talent, etc. His achievement is absolutely magnificent, no doubt about it, but he can do so much more -- he has been the opportunity to do so much more -- but through this refusal, he (maybe unconsciously) is refusing to realize this further potential of contributing to the planet.

Maybe so, but that is his right. He is still an individual, and this planet does not own him or his contributions. If he doesnt want to contribute to this planet in the way that you would deem sufficient, that is totally up to him. Maybe this contribution he has just made to the field of mathematics is sufficient unto him. What you would do with his notoriety is immaterial to the point. You are not the one that proved Poincare's conjecture. He is.

We always complain about people in this world who, it would seem, are only doing what they do, whether it be music, movies, or math and science for the notoriety that it can bring them. Here is a man who obviously did what he did purely for the love of mathematics. I say he deserves our praise and admiration. Leave the man be.

I fully agree that he deserves great praise and admiration.

But, this does not mean that he is beyond criticism.

I'm not saying that we should all gang up on him and demand that he speak in front of wide-eyed mathematical youngsters.

All I'm saying is that he has the potential to do much more than he has already done (which is considerable) by directly broadening the horizons of youngsters.

I don't think I'm being aggressively intrusive in saying that. It'd be just like someone suggesting that Einstein should give lectures about his work. If he didn't want to, so beit, but what exactly compels equating this suggestion to squeezing a man too much? (and anyway, he has a lot more juice in him than even this great accomplishment. If he doesn't want to extract it, that's his prerogativ. I'm only mentioning that that extra juice would be very beneficial to mathematics.)

There's really nothing I'm doing that doesn't leave him be, but I'm suggesting that he can more fully engage in the scientific process of inspiring and gaining knowledge by direct interaction, or at least by encouraging direct interaction and more interest in math. He's done that to a certain extent by publishing his work, but it is very easy for him to simply point to a scientifically beneficial cause (for example, scholarship trusts or university research funds) and say "Let's take that money you're going to give me and put it to a good scientific, mathematics-furthering cause."

I don't know. I don't see the harm in suggesting that he can do more than he's already done.

As for your other point:

If only the mad people running our world would be a little bit like this man. The Me Inc types and self promotion sorts rule our world, yet world peace still seem impossible.

I don't think having the "mad people" of the world ascribe to his life philosophy would be at all beneficial. He does math for math's sake. A world leader working in politics for politics' sake? That'd be rather dangerous. Not knowing an agenda, or having an agenda that is removed from very real interests and costs/benefits is rather dangerous for a leader. Meh, world peace would be impossible even with people like him in power. World peace is a pipe dream without the enforced rule of a single governing body, and no ones likes living under a universal ruler. ;-)

I concede that I'm a pessimist, but blurring the lines between idealism and pragmatic criticism seems worse.

First of all, I stil understand why trying to educate very bright up-and-coming mathematicians would be a "fruitless celebration of mediocre." I imagine that, even if he acquiesces to teach or lecture, it wouldn't be as an associate professor at Delaware Community College. It would a position where he could further the knowledge of those who show the most promise of doing something with his knowledge.

This is not about material things. This is about giving back to society an amount that is much larger than your already formidable gift, but still very much easily within your capacities. It's an ideal of furthering humanity's knowledge. Maybe you consider that materialistic, but I don't.

I can apply your Hume quote to yourself or the mathematician in the same manner you wish to apply it to those merely suggesting that he could do more good than he has done already. You are so sure and arrogant of your grand judgment of "celebration of mediocre" that you overlook the entire history of science, which has been that about sharing and disseminating knowledge and inspiration. Arrogance? I'm not the one telling everyone that he shouldn't talk to anyone because everyone else is mediocre. Further, you are being the arrogant one in this discussion in assuming that you know his "role in the world" and that such a thing is immutable from your conception of it. Really, now. This high-minded hypocrisy is getting ridiculous.

Errrr... not to keep bugging you, but what do the rulers and politicians of the world have to do with... anything here?

Ah, okay.

Now that I know your comments have an implicit direction, I can totally understand where you're coming from. Originally, this article never mentioned any rulers, only other members of the scientific community, so I was really wondering at what the heck you meant. :-p