|
|
|
|
|
|
by python123
5934 days ago
|
|
|
He has never asked for anything like that, and his decision not to accept the Fields was made long before the controversy with Yau. He is a purist who doesn't see the value in that type of recognition. The work is reward in and of itself. His choice to quit mathematics, however, was based on his complaints about its politics and lack of integrity, but even this was not directed at his work on the Poincare. Since this is so far off the mark, I thought that that article you cited must be really bad. It isn't. Why don't you try reading it again? |
|
|
Perelman got the Fields medal in May 2006 and finally refused it in June 2006 when a team of mathematicians came to his home to visit him.
So Perelman was most likely aware of the paper before he was even awarded the medal and was definitely aware of the controversy when he finally refused it.
Your other statements are attempts to dive deep into semantics in order to change the meaning of the cited article. You make it sound like his decision to refuse the medal and quit mathematics were completely separate, and based on different reasons, but the persons that interviewed him reported differently: "The prospect of being awarded a Fields Medal had forced him to make a complete break with his profession."
Regarding his comments about lack of integrity in mathematics, it is true that he kept his comments general, but that does not mean that they had nothing to do with his work on Poincare. Since Poincare was the last big thing he worked on and he worked on it for about ten years, finishing only a couple of years before the interview, and since it is by far the most important thing to happen to his career thus far, one might think that his comments on the field of mathematics might have had at least something to do with his work on Poincare.