Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Grigory Perelman

  1. Mar 25, 2010 #1

    From Wikipedia:

    There is also a book about him:

    Is he humble or simply eccentric?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 25, 2010 #2
    Yes he is.
  4. Mar 25, 2010 #3
    Eccentric, he doesn't like the show of prizes and recognition and the whole popstar parade of maths, and I agree with him.

    I think calling theorems after the first person that, in mass knowledge, proved them is stupid. 1: you can't be sure another proof didn't dive into obscurity, 2: it isn't even done consistently. I think 'the law of aequivalence of force and the derivative of moment with respect to time' in sort F=dP(t) is a lot better than 'Newton's first law of motion'.

    Prizes are also a big hoax, when did a result in pure maths ever win a fields? (no doubt some one can bring a thing up though). It's a media hype.
  5. Mar 25, 2010 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  6. Mar 25, 2010 #5
    In addition to ethics concerns, I hear in Russia it's better to keep a low profile, lest you attract unwanted attention from the mafia or other gangs.
  7. Mar 25, 2010 #6

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This sentence, at least for me, is a little misleading. According to Wikipedia,
  8. Mar 25, 2010 #7
    This is a bit paranoid :P Really.
  9. Mar 25, 2010 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You really want to have to say "the law of equivalence of force and the derivative of motion with respect to time" rather than "Newton's first law" every time you reference it? You're definitely in the minority there.

    I know someone who claims some of his friends spent a summer finding Grothendieck's house and ended up doing it. They saw him only for the time it took for him to say 'get off my property'
  10. Mar 25, 2010 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Perhaps. It was written by John Baez of course.

    Yes, that incident is recounted in the link. He was actually very friendly at first then turned nasty.

  11. Mar 25, 2010 #10
    , no, I think FdP(t) suffices.

    I know some one who proved P=NP, and ¬(P=NP) a month earlier.
  12. Mar 25, 2010 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    On the other hand I have had exam papers that wanted you to remember which was Boyle's law and which was Charles' law - rather than just PV=nRT
  13. Mar 27, 2010 #12
    he should give that dosh to charity IMO.
  14. Mar 27, 2010 #13
    IMO he is not humble, and not eccentric in a simple way, although he is eccentric after all.

    If he was humble, he would play along with the academic world and do what he is expected to do. Obviously, humble people would not give comments like this:


    Mathematicians tend to have rather strange ways prioritizing things. My guess is that Perelman expects very high ethical standards from other people, perhaps in a similar manner as a mathematician can expect strict rigor in proofs, and the lack of ethics (at least from his point of view) eventually lead him to dislike the mathematical community.
  15. Mar 27, 2010 #14
    The truth about Perelman-Yau conflict?

    I've started to regret that I didn't keep diary about finding things out about Perelman-Yau conflict. In total it has turned out to be a confusing affair.

    I remember that at some point I heard (or read) some people talking about the possibility, that Yau might have be trying to "steal" the credit.

    Later when I tried to find out about this, I started to doubt the original rumors. I started leaning towards the direction that New Yorker (which was at the heart of the affair) might have simply exaggerated stuff, and had made up the story out of thin air, in typical unethical journalist fashion. It was difficult to find information about the alleged stealing attempt, Yau had been furious about the New Yorker article, and some mathematicians had confirmed that New Yorker has "quoted them out of context".

    Then I read the book by Masha Gessen, and it returned me to consider the possibility of the stealing attempt. Gessen gives some details about various comments given in some seminars, and also some details about Yau's students publications, and leaves the reader under impression, that Yau did try to steal some credit, but later changed the strategy and started insisting that stealing attempt had never occurred.

    Right now, I think that the picture that Gessen gives makes the sense most. The reason why I had difficulty finding out anything about the conflict, could be the same reason why Perelman started to reject the academic community.The reason was that the mathematical community prefers to maintain silence about the Perelman-Yau conflict.
  16. Mar 30, 2010 #15
  17. Mar 30, 2010 #16
    Give the man some privacy.

    Edit: and give me that money.
  18. Mar 30, 2010 #17

    Oh I see, that is yet another example of *your* idea about "garbage in, garbage out." ROTFL!
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  19. Mar 30, 2010 #18

    The only thing I can extrapolate from what you have written above TheLoser is absolutely NOTHING except you think Kajahtava is a male. How do you know if the person( Kajahtava) is a he? Furthermore, Kajahtava's famous line "garbage in, garbage out" on another topic we were in discussion together has become pure rhetoric on behalf of Kajahtava. I most definately ignore such trite dialogues that have no substance and are impossible to comprehend due to a lack of proper English in a forum that requires such as far as I am concerned.

    Have a good day.
  20. Mar 30, 2010 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  21. Mar 30, 2010 #20
    The 'garbage in / garbage out' was meant to signify that the human central nervous system still in effect is a computer that just processes its input (senses) by the laws of physics because it can do no other thing and then results into output (muscle contractions).

    Therefore there should be some input possible to make a human do all things desired.

    Note that I do not at this moment accept the naïve view that humans are 'self aware' or even more awkward that they have a 'choice' to make, I personally approach it this reductionistically. Human beings are cold automatons without any feelings or emotions that just operate on a sophisticated and adaptive computer we call a central nervous system.
  22. Mar 30, 2010 #21
    Kajahtava, the *terminology* that you use for the 'human central nervous system' is incorrect. Do some research in the future prior to contorting what the medical profession has already defined then I will consider having a discussion with you. If you need help go to the Biology section of PhysicsForms where it can be discussed further.

    Stephen Hawkings is a quadriplegic with a brilliant mind. Intelligent though a frail man totally aware and emotional to the extent of recognizing beauty and he is most definately capable of making the choice to lecture when he is available.

    Also, please consider in the future not to do as you have done elsewhere on another topic with me to slice and dice a simple paragraph with an unending, full blown rhetorical response.

    Have a wonderful day. I'm extremely busy but did want to explain further my concerns. And they are based on "thinking" free from emotion.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  23. Dec 5, 2010 #22
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook