Millennium Prize Update

The Clay Mathematics Institute this past week sponsored a conference in Paris devoted to celebrating the proof of the Poincare Conjecture. This included a short ceremony on June 8th awarding the Millennium prize to Perelman, which included several laudations explaining his achievement.

The question of what happens to the million dollars remains unresolved, with the following statement issued yesterday:

The Clay Mathematics Institute has no plans for the Millennium Prize funds other than to respectfully wait for Dr. Perelman’s decision. No deadline has been fixed for his decision, and nothing has been said or will be said about the possible use of the funds. Please see the text and laudations below for what is truly important: Dr. Perelman’s great gift of a solution to the century-old conjecture of Henri Poincaré, and Thurston’s geometrization conjecture. Their solution was celebrated at a conference in Paris held June 8-9, 2010. Those present send their congratulations and best wishes to Dr. Perelman.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Millennium Prize Update

  1. Syzygy says:

    Among the laudations for Perelman from several very distinguished mathematicians, I would like to bring attention to Thurston’s: It is the only one to hint that perhaps what is most admirable about Perelman, even beyond his awesome mathematical strength, is his courage to stay true to his convictions and to challenge all this relentless chasing after fame and external recognition at the expense of caring for our “deeper needs”. I’m glad that someone of Thurston’s calibre thought to make this point clear. The other laudations, while full of praise for Perelman’s mathematical heroism, do not say anything essentially fresh.

  2. D R Lunsford says:

    Peter, for you next book, I wish you would write up an historical exposition of this and related work, understandable to non-specialists with some grounding in advanced mathematics.

    -drl

  3. Fred says:

    The Institute should make public a deadline for Perelman to accept his prize. If no response, they should just give the money to charity. If Perelman doesn’t want the money, this would be a perfect opportunity for him to make a tangible contribution to humanity by accepting the prize money and immediately giving it to charity. This is a million dollars here. Do you know what a million dollars could do? These people should get out of their ivory towers and look around at the world.

  4. Peter Woit says:

    drl,

    I’m afraid this is a topic way beyond my competence. There’s at least a couple popular books already (by Szpiro, Gessen) and various survey articles at different levels. But the kind of geometric analysis behind Hamilton’s work and the Perelman proof is way beyond me. I know just enough about it to know the kind of time commitment that would be needed to really understand it…

  5. Why don`t they send this “Millennium Prize” (one millions US dollars)directly to the mother of Perelman who is living in a very poor way in St.Petersburg?
    Best wishes,
    Dr.Kathrine M.(Switzerland).

  6. It is funny how everyone says that Perelman turned down the prize when he has said nothing. It is also funny how people like Fred try to tell Perelman what to do.

  7. ghengis.khandada says:

    Perelman once said the greatest reward for proving the Poincare conjecture is the proof itself, and that the best way to honor him/his work is to re-direct our time and energy to understand the proof. Perelman gives me tremendous hope by being a purist to the end.

  8. Fred says:

    Roger,

    I just meant that as a suggestion for Perelman, that’s all. If he really wanted the money/prize, he would have said something by now. He clearly doesn’t want the money, so I offered the suggestion that the Institute just give the money away to charity. The other suggestion, mentioned above, is that he money go to his mother instead. If Perelman wants all this hoopla to lead to something good, then my suggestion was for him to accept the money and give it to people who need it, since he clearly doesn’t want it. You can find plenty of people/causes that would benefit from the money. It’s a good opportunity for him to make this happen. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a good idea.

  9. BigG says:

    Fred,

    Given the number of needy people in the world what Perelman is doing is extremely selfish. It’s really cool he’s not accepting the money on principle, but he could redirect the Clay Inst. to donate the money or accept it on the grounds he will donate it. Wittgenstein did something similar and for similar reasons.

    As for the other guy, why bother responding to people who obviously are not seriously interested in what you have to say? If there is no serious engagement with the issues or interest in a disscussion there’s no basis for debate.

  10. Haelfix says:

    Alternatively the Clay inst. could just create a new question (there are many worthy ones) and have instant funding.

  11. Anonymous says:

    This Fred and BigG sillness reminds me of piles of angry letters Grothendieck recieved upon his decline of Crafoord Prize. The particularily absurd one was from a woman accusing him of robbing French people from Kenseyian stimulus the economy would recieve would he spend his prize money in France.

    Also, Dr Kathrine, Perelman probably cares more about his mother than you do about her. I’d also like to point that Perelman recievied a few prizes in the nineties and is moderately wealthy by Russian standards.

  12. Bob Levine says:

    “This Fred and BigG sillness reminds me of piles of angry letters Grothendieck recieved upon his decline of Crafoord Prize. The particularily absurd one was from a woman accusing him of robbing French people from Kenseyian stimulus the economy would recieve would he spend his prize money in France.

    Also, Dr Kathrine, Perelman probably cares more about his mother than you do about her. I’d also like to point that Perelman recievied a few prizes in the nineties and is moderately wealthy by Russian standards.”

    Well said on all counts, Anonymous!

    This thread raises a question which is much more general than the question of what Perelman is going to do—namely, what is the virtue (or otherwise) of these huge cash prizes that are associated with specific prizes for scientific discovery? Does the prestige of the physics Nobel, for example, really depend on the attachment of approximately $1,500,000 US to it? Suppose the prize were reduced to $10,000, but everything else about the award were left intact—would that alter the role of the Nobel in singling out the absolutely highest level of achievements in physics and the other disciplines it’s awarded for?

    Suppose the answer to that one is ‘No’. The next question one would want to ask would be, does the award of the Nobel actually promote achievements in the Nobel disciplines which otherwise would not be reached, or not reached until much, much later?

    My impression is that Perelman’s point in declining the Field Medal, and (in all likelihood) the Millenium Prize, is to forcefully express his own judgment on these questions: a sound result is the only authentic reward of scientific investigation. Everything else is, well, hype. Does anyone *really* want to argue that the opportunity to support this or that charity trumps taking and maintaining such a principled position?

  13. BigG says:

    It’s absolutely not silly. This western idea of the lone genius can lead to extremely selfish thinking. When you have homeless and starving people who cares about your purity as a mathematician. The European enlightenment was a good thing but individual self-determination can be taken too far. It may be a long time before people like you understand this.

  14. Jack Lothian says:

    Turning down a prize is selfish??? While I presume accepting it isn’t selfish?? That is silly. Forcing Perelman to accept the prize & donate it charity would be unethical and morally unacceptable. Yet you feel this should be done on his behave & against his wishes because it makes you feel better? While I would not make the same decision as Perelman, I respect his right to make his decision.

    Truth is, his decision awes me. I wonder if maybe he sees further then me even in non-mathematical issues.

  15. Coin says:

    It seems to me that by not accepting the prize, Perelman is effectively donating a million dollars to the Clay Institute. This seems like a not unreasonable use of a million dollars to me.

  16. BigG says:

    Jack you haven’t read what I said closely. No one can make him accept the money but not doing so on some principle of the purity of maths is selfish. It has nothing to do with making me feel better and by saying this your unfounded assumptions while reading become clear.

    The idea that a principle of the purity of math is somehow more important than helping others is selfish. Who cares about math in comparison with relieving the suffering of others? On a personal level, the decision by itself to stand up for one’s principles is admirable. But given the money and what can be done with it, there are times when a principle such as this needs to be put aside.

    There are two points of view of this principle, one for himself and one for the discipline of math. Both these are less important than helping those in need. In comparison, who cares about Perelman and who cares about math. They are meaningless from this point of view.

    I would also be in awe of Perelman from a personal perspective of standing up for one’s principles. But there is nothing to be in awe of when you consider how much could be done.

    Consider a thought experiment. His mother is sick and too poor to receive treatment. He turns down the prize because of some personal principle. Is he worthy of awe now or completely selfish? This is exactly the situation he’s currently in.

    You need to think about what’s being said. When your perspective begins to go from me to them you will understand my point.

  17. Sansa says:

    For the people condemning Perelman for not accepting $1M and giving immediately to charity, why aren’t you also condemning Landon Clay for not giving $7M to charity?

    (Also BigG consider a thought fact: Russia has UHC)

  18. Fred says:

    Bob Levine:

    “My impression is that Perelman’s point in declining the Field Medal, and (in all likelihood) the Millenium Prize, is to forcefully express his own judgment on these questions: a sound result is the only authentic reward of scientific investigation. Everything else is, well, hype. Does anyone *really* want to argue that the opportunity to support this or that charity trumps taking and maintaining such a principled position?”

    Suppose this money could be used to educate people about science in a third world country. I believe this kind of thing trumps such a principled position because holding such a position accomplishes nothing. Accepting the money in an effort to make peoples’ lives better accomplishes something. It takes money away from rich people, using it in the service of others.

    Here’s a suggestion for the Institute. If Perelman doesn’t accept the prize money in two weeks, the Institute will use the money to develop schools that educate people about science and math. Schools in countries too poor to have them.

  19. BigG says:

    Sansa,

    I’m not condeming Perelman. You need to read what I’m saying more closely. I never used the term condem. Another simple analogy will make the point clear. If you over pay for something and I say ‘you paid too much for that’ there’s no condemnation. That’s your choice. All I’m doing is stating my opinion that you paid too much money. These words don’t imply anything else.

    Your comment about Russa having UHC misses my point completely. Its an abstraction from people in general to someone in particular that makes clearer how he would be selfish not to accept the money if someone needed it.

    Fred seems to be the only one who understands my point. I don’t care if you agree or not with me but most of those who disagree don’t understand my point. As a result, when they reply they make claims that are not supported by what I wrote.

    “I said he would be lonely, & he said he prostituted his mind talking to intelligent people.”

  20. John Bacon says:

    “Who cares about math in comparison with relieving the suffering of others?”

    I do. In the end Perelman’s work is far more important than the lives of thousands if not millions of humans. Certainly yours or any commenter here.

    Human life is severely over-rated. Most humans are trash and contribute nothing to understand the world and advance knowledge only concerning themselves with stupid societal pursuits such as kicking a ball into a net or deceiving other people for social/financial status.

    In the end Perelman’s work trumps all of this trash and so does is right to refuse the prize for whatever reasons he sees fit.

    His mother is sick and too poor to receive treatment. He turns down the prize because of some personal principle. Is he worthy of awe now or completely selfish?

    Both.

    People who aren’t openly selfish always have insidious ulterior motives that make them far more dangerous than ones that those who are selfish.

  21. Peter Woit says:

    Enough, the comments here reveal all too much about the commenters, but nothing at all about Perelman and his situation. Don’t submit comments unless you have something informative about the topic of the posting to contribute.

  22. basic arithmetic says:

    To put things into perspective, $1miilion represents about 0.00001% of the USA’s (annual) GDP.

  23. Tim van Beek says:

    At the end of the 1990ties I spent a few weeks at the institute Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, France, and got to know some scientists from Russia, they had grants and tried to save as much money as they could, because at that time you could live like a year in Russia with the money you had to spent during one month in Grenoble. They did research, too, but one told me that the main reason for him to go to Grenoble was to get French money and use that to fund his research back home.
    Perelman’s story reminds me of him, maybe he would have refused the million dollar price, too, if having this amount of money would mean that he could not concentrate on his research as much as he liked to, and if he did not need it because his savings were enough to survive.
    I have always admired the Russian experimentalists, who were able to produce results despite their unfavorable economic situation.

  24. ML says:

    I live in Stcokholm, just an hours flight from St Petersburg, where
    I have good friends well connected in mathematics. I wanted to invite Perelman to Stockholm as a short-term guest, with no commitments from his side. But the message from Perelman was that he was not willing to discuss anything related to mathematics.

  25. The Vlad says:

    I think the interesting questions are: Is he still doing math? And if so, what fantastic insights and technical advances is the academic community missing because of his reclusivity? Presumably he is documenting his putative findings in such a way that those who eventually follow him–should his work ever see the light of day–can build on that work.

  26. Pilot says:

    With apologies to Peter (“Don’t submit comments unless you have something informative”), here is my suggestion: Perelman should accept the award, take the money and declare a million-dollar-prize of his own for his favourite problem in mathematics. Or better, award it to the next Henri Poincare. He certainly deserves at least ten million dollars and Perelman can start by redirecting his one? 🙂

  27. Arun says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_sc/eu_sci_russia_math_genius

    Grigory Perelman, a reclusive Russian mathematics genius who made headlines earlier this year for not immediately embracing a lucrative math prize, has decided to decline the cash.

    Perelman’s decision was announced Thursday by the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge, Mass., which had awarded Perelman its Millennium Prize.
    ….
    ….

    Jim Carlson, institute president, said Perelman’s decision was not a complete surprise, since he had declined some previous math prizes.

    Carlson said Perelman had told him by telephone last week of his decision and gave no reason. But the Interfax news agency quoted Perelman as saying he believed the prize was unfair. Perelman told Interfax he considered his contribution to solving the Poincare conjecture no greater than that of Columbia University mathematician Richard Hamilton.

    “To put it short, the main reason is my disagreement with the organized mathematical community,” Perelman, 43, told Interfax. “I don’t like their decisions, I consider them unjust.”

  28. Benni says:

    Perelman now has officially declined the clay prize.

    According to recent press articles, Perelman told:
    http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,704113,00.html

    Perelman thinks that Richard Hamilton deserves the prize similarly than does Perelman. Perelman says the decision of the Clay institute therefore would not be fair. As a consequence, he refused to accept the prize.

    This seems to be a reasonable decision. It is always doubtful, if an achivement like this in mathematics can be attributed to one single person who can be given an avard. Often, there are more people involved in a proof than just one person.

  29. Tim van Beek says:

    I’ve read that article, too, but, oddly enough, there does not seem a link or hint to the source. Surely, no one from the spiegel online editorial staff talked to Mr. Perelman in person, right?

  30. Arun says:

    This version reports Perelman saying that he had as many reasons to accept as to decline the prize and that is why it took him so long to make a decision. I’m glad he considered taking the award.

    Source: Tanjug News Agency

    Russian mathematician Grigory Perelman decided to reject the Millennium Prize worth $ 1 million from the American Clay Mathematics Institute, the Interfax News Agency reported.

    “I declined the award. I had as many reasons to accept it as to turn it down. That’s why it took me so long to make the decision” Perelman said.

    The main reason for his decision to reject the award was its “unfairness”.

    “I think my contribution in solving the problem of the Poincare conjecture was not greater than the one of the American mathematician Richard Hamilton.”

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6208384-russian-math-genius-rejects-1-million-prize

Comments are closed.