[KKKKkkkk1]

Does getting an undergrad degree in astronomy and physics, and then a math PhD from UIUC, really count as "blooms late"? Sounds like a fairly standard career path to me.

[__mbm__]

You're correct: Wired has hyped the original title of the article in Quanta Magazine: "A Path Less Taken to the Peak of the Math World". Any time you see the words "Math Genius" you should assume hyperbole.

If you like this kind of story, I highly recommend putting Quanta (https://www.quantamagazine.org/) on your radar and avoiding most of the tabloid-science articles in Wired.

[ianai]

Yes, calling him a late bloomer when he's 34 is pretty awful.

[vnchr]

There's a traditional view in math that most great accomplishments are had before 30, based on past mathematicians' successes.

[ianai]

"and the truly great ones are dead before they're 40 so all old mathematicians must be worthless" I've heard that one, too. Doesn't make it beneficial to the field.

[vnchr]

Agreed. Great to have a counterpoint in the subject of this article.

[foobaw]

Maybe he's a late bloomer in the sense that he was neither a math prodigy or attended IMO.

I personally know several IMO winners who started studying Math when they were 3~4 years old and it's been part of their life.