What lessons can we learn from Grisha Perelman's story?

[ModusPonens]

Hello

If, like me, you've been looking for a documentary on Perelman for a long time, here it it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng1W2KUHI2s

[youtube]Ng1W2KUHI2s[/youtube]

You can activate the English subtitles by clicking the "Captions" button.

 

[Deveno]

I find that so sad. Here is my take on it:

You can claim you do what you do for love, or for money. If you claim both, you are lying to someone.

 

[ModusPonens]

I find that so sad. Here is my take on it:

You can claim you do what you do for love, or for money. If you claim both, you are lying to someone.

I don't think I understood your point. Is the fact that he no longer does mathematics what's sad?

No rational person does a PhD in mathematics for the money. A lot of people do it for the prestige and admiration rather than love for the discipline. But I don't know anybody who did it for money.

 

[Deveno]

I don't think I understood your point. Is the fact that he no longer does mathematics what's sad?

No rational person does a PhD in mathematics for the money. A lot of people do it for the prestige and admiration rather than love for the discipline. But I don't know anybody who did it for money.

It's a classic dichotomy. By "money" I don't actually mean cash, per se-there are lots of "surrogates" for financial wealth in the academic world: tenure, chair of a department, co-credit for important papers.

One often thinks of mathematicians as noble searchers for the truth. The truth is, they are human beings much like any other: a mixture of good and bad intentions, as varied as a smorgasbord.

And yes, what is sad is that Perelman became embittered by the very field he obviously loves. Almost a tragedy like those of the Greeks of antiquity. And, perhaps, a bit of instability at play here. Mathematics at its boundaries is a lonely place, and such solitude takes a heavy toll. He would not be the first great mathematician to have decided that the mathematical world had nothing to offer him: Grassmann and Grothendieck come immediately to mind.

 

[ModusPonens]

It's a classic dichotomy. By "money" I don't actually mean cash, per se-there are lots of "surrogates" for financial wealth in the academic world: tenure, chair of a department, co-credit for important papers.

One often thinks of mathematicians as noble searchers for the truth. The truth is, they are human beings much like any other: a mixture of good and bad intentions, as varied as a smorgasbord.

And yes, what is sad is that Perelman became embittered by the very field he obviously loves. Almost a tragedy like those of the Greeks of antiquity. And, perhaps, a bit of instability at play here. Mathematics at its boundaries is a lonely place, and such solitude takes a heavy toll. He would not be the first great mathematician to have decided that the mathematical world had nothing to offer him: Grassmann and Grothendieck come immediately to mind.

It's true that mathematicians are as much human as any other human. But I do think that the success of a mathematician is a lot more positively correlated with the purity of his intentions than people think. Maybe that's a romantic belief I have, idk. One thing that is common to all the people who really change a field of human endeavour, be it mathematics, physics, or comedy is a true passion about the subject.

Erdos didn't win the Fields medal that he deserved because he didn't even bother to reestablish the truth. Grothendieck's case is truly tragic, but he explains his motivation as pure childlike curiosity. Newton only published his work because another man urged him to do it. Feynman decided he wouldn't do anything that didn't interest him after the Manhatan project. And it was then that he made his best work. I'm sure there are plenty of cases I don't remember now. But these are the legends, the ones who are remembered because it's impossible to forget.

I wish Perelman had kept this in mind. Perhaps we would have him working on even more exciting things.