РУСФОРУМ АВСТРАЛИЯ

В че странного. Поступки и мотивы гениев необъяснимы для простого человека.
Нужно иметь такие же мозги, чтобы понять.

В че странного. Поступки и мотивы гениев необъяснимы для простого человека.
Нужно иметь такие же мозги, чтобы понять.

Это я читал. Всё равно странно.

Странный человек. Я так и не понял, почему он от заслуженной премии отказался.

...Так что его разочарование в этом "творческом" процессе вполне понятно.

Юджин,
Мне все же инттересно: согласили бы ли Вы принять какой-то знак уважения от человека или группы людей, которых Вы не уважаете?

И сколько нулей может быть в этом знаке, чтобы Вы согласились его принять?

Basically, he perceived (whether true or not I will not comment) that Yau had tried to steal his proof. Not only that, but since he figured the impact of his work was self-evident, he did not make some big deal about his publishing (he only submitted preprint or something). Yau and some other chinese mathematicians publish a "proof" of poincare conjecture since they think the preprint isn't enough but it's really just perelmans work rehashed/with more clarity. So Perelman feels like his work has been stolen and the math community should immediately see this and do something about it. Since there wasn't enough outrage in the math community (in his eyes) he decided it wasn't worth being a part of. He felt that if everyone else is so corrupt that his integrity is seen as out of place than maybe he is out of place in math.

Source: perelman documentary in russian on youtube





Not only that, but since he figured the impact of his work was self-evident, he did not make some big deal about his publishing (he only submitted preprint or something). Yau and some other chinese mathematicians publish a "proof" of poincare conjecture since they think the preprint isn't enough but it's really just perelmans work rehashed/with more clarity.

This is a very contentious issue, and it is probably impossible to get an unbiased opinion, but let me make a few remarks here. First, the paper by Chinese mathematicians you are referring to does not have Yau's name on it. One of the authors, Huai Dong Cao of Lehigh U, is close to Yau, and was his PhD student. Apparently, it was Yau who encouraged the team to write up their paper. It is also important to note that the original paper (not the one linked to above) was later revised with a new title fully acknowledging Perelman's work, together with a published apology in the journal where it was first published (Asian J. Math.).

Although the presentation in the original paper by the two Chinese mathematicians exaggerated their own contributions and ignored some previous work (not only Perelman's), they were not the only ones to feel that although Perelman had all the right ideas, his exposition was not quite up to the standards one might expect for such an important result. In fact, there were several other teams who worked on writing out all the (sometimes quite non-trivial) details. At least three groups felt the extra work was substantial enough to be published: T. Shioya-T. Yamaguchi, B. Kleiner- J. Lott and J. Morgan-G. Tian.

When publishing on such immensely important problems, it is a mathematician's responsibility to ensure they provide the readers with the complete, written details of the proof. Tao has a decent comment on this (see his "Editorial policy on famous problems"). Publishing manuscripts that are not obviously complete or correct opens the door to even more controversy than a full correct proof of any big problem will inevitably generate, given the number of people competing towards the resolution at any given time.

I once heard an eminent geometric topologist, who had nothing to do with the whole affair, and is generally known to shun politicking and controversy, say that Perelman was "very lucky" that several different teams with famous people took the time to check and publish the details of the proof. In those circumstances it became natural to award him the full credit. This person was of the opinion that had a single person come out with a full readable proof after him, they might have had a reasonable claim at a share of the credit.

Вы считаете, что Вашe мнение не заслуживает моего внимания?