Just woke up to see that this year’s Abel Prize has gone to algebraic geometer and number theorist Pierre Deligne, who is one of the truly great figures in 20th century mathematics. Deligne first became well-known for his proof of the Weil Conjectures in the 1970s, and has had a long and and very fruitful career since then, much of it spent at the Institute in Princeton. While working mainly in a part of mathematics far from physics, he also has had a long history of interactions with physicists, participating in the IAS year-long program on QFT, and most recently getting involved in current research on amplitudes. An excellent choice, congratulations to him!.

**
Update:** See Tim Gowers’s blog for more, including his talk presenting Deligne’s work.

### About

### Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations

### Not Even Wrong: The Book

### Categories

- Book Reviews (100)
- BRST (12)
- Experimental HEP News (148)
- Fake Physics (6)
- Favorite Old Posts (46)
- Langlands (33)
- Multiverse Mania (149)
- Not Even Wrong: The Book (27)
- Obituaries (20)
- Quantum Mechanics (11)
- Quantum Theory: The Book (6)
- Strings 2XXX (18)
- Swampland (10)
- This Week's Hype (101)
- Uncategorized (1,162)

### Recent Comments

- High Life 12

Jack Morava, Jack Morava, Narad, Peter Woit, Amitabh Lath, Petite Kabylie [...] - Various and Sundry 30

Narad, anon, David Roberts, Brian Dolan, chorasimilarity, Francesco Ginelli [...] - Scholze and Stix on the Mochizuki Proof 37

David Roberts, David Roberts, Andrew, Peter Woit, Timothy Chow, Mizan R Khan [...] - This Week's Hype 19

Low Math, Meekly Interacting, tulpoeid, GoletaBeach, Jeff, Peter Woit, Lars [...] - Is Quantum Mechanics a Probabilistic Theory? 74

Peter Woit, David Metzler, Luuk van Dijk, Peter Woit, John Baez, Peter Woit [...]

- High Life 12
### Archives

### Links

### Mathematics Weblogs

- Alex Youcis
- Alexandre Borovik
- Anton Hilado
- Cathy O'Neil
- Daniel Litt
- Danny Calegari
- David Hansen
- David Mumford
- David Roberts
- Emmanuel Kowalski
- Harald Helfgott
- Jesse Johnson
- Johan deJong
- Lieven Le Bruyn
- Mathematics Without Apologies
- Michael Hutchings
- Motivic Stuff
- Noncommutative Geometry
- Pieter Belmans
- Qiaochu Yuan
- Quomodocumque
- Rigorous Trivialities
- Secret Blogging Seminar
- Terence Tao
- The n-Category Cafe
- Timothy Gowers

### Physics Weblogs

- Alexey Petrov
- AMVA4NewPhysics
- Andrew Jaffe
- Angry Physicist
- Capitalist Imperialist Pig
- Chad Orzel
- Charles Day
- Clifford Johnson
- Cormac O’Raifeartaigh
- Doug Natelson
- EPMG Blog
- Georg von Hippel
- Gordon Watts
- Jackson Clarke
- Jacques Distler
- Jennifer Ouellette
- Jim Baggott
- Joe Conlon
- John Horgan
- Kyle Cranmer
- Lubos Motl
- Makoto Sakurai
- Mark Goodsell
- Mateus Araujo
- Matt Strassler
- Matt von Hippel
- Matthew Buckley
- Michael Schmitt
- Norbert Bodendorfer
- Peter Orland
- Physics World
- Reimagine Physics
- Resonaances
- Robert Helling
- Ross McKenzie
- Sabine Hossenfelder
- Scott Aaronson
- Sesh Nadathur
- Shaun Hotchkiss
- Shores of the Dirac Sea
- Stacy McGaugh
- Steve Hsu
- Tommaso Dorigo

### Twitter

### Meta

The Courant Institute is hosting a one-day conf tomorrow for the Abel Prize.

http://cims.nyu.edu/webapps/content/special/Abel_in_NY

Courant’s three Abel laureates will speak. Will you go?

cims conf,

That was a few weeks ago (Feb. 21, not March 21). Didn’t hear about it until the day after. This week is Spring Break and everyone (except me…) has left town.

I was pretty surprised (as I am every year) that Terry Tao didn’t win.

El-coco,

You have to realize that this prize was only started in 2002. In some sense they’re now in the process of working their way through the list of all the great figures of 20th century mathematics who are still alive. It’s now (intentionally I think) kind of an opposite of the Fields Medal, which was designed to reward and encourage young people still early in their careers.

Looking at the list, no one younger than mid-sixties has gotten the Abel. If Tao remains in good health, I’d predict he’ll sooner or later get the prize, but it may take a while…

Jean Pierre Serre (2003), Michael Atiyah (2004), John Griggs Thompson (2008), John Milnor (2010) and now Pierre Deligne (2013) are all Fields Medalists, so one hypothesizes that the Abel is to encourage FM winners to keep working and not goof off in their old age?

opp,

This kind of gives some good data on what fraction of great mathematicians get the Fields Medal (5/13). Reasons for not getting the Fields Medal include doing ones best work when not young and having the misfortune to be of around the same age as several other great mathematicians (so missing out on the Field during the typical narrow time-window people are good candidates for it).

Who got 2013 fundamental physics prize?

Technically it’s Tim Gowers. So it’s Gowers’ blog not Gower’s blog.

jin,

Announcement coming up soon, see

http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/play.php?event=241643

tg,

Thanks, fixed.

If you go to the blog, you will find that it is (correctly) Gowers’s blog.

Deligne deserves

twoAbel prizes. One for his mathematics and one for his character. Very well deserved.“Deligne deserves two Abel prizes. One for his mathematics and one for his character.”

Grothendieck would disagree with you.

@Peter It’s funny how the year long course on QFT & Strings simply becomes course on QFT for you.

anon,

OK, fixed the fix.

Ray,

http://www.math.ias.edu/qft

“A program in Quantum Field Theory for mathematicians was held at the Institute for Advanced study during the academic year 1996-97.”

The AMS published book is called “Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course For Mathematicians”. Let’s not forget Eric d’Hoker’s celebrated string theory course was a part of the year-long program as well.

Gaitsgory’s notes in that volume are very nice too.

Bob Jones,

That may be a minority opinion… I don’t think I’ve previously heard of anyone being able to understand Gaitsgory’s notes. It’s amusing that your and Ray’s comments came in next to each other. I forget who I heard this from, and it’s probably 2nd or 3rd hand and not accurate, but someone told me that Gaitsgory was originally the one writing up notes for d’Hoker’s lectures. This led to a problem though when the lecturer himself could not understand the notes of his own lectures, so decided he had to write up his own. Again, take that story with a grain of salt, but still…

To be honest, I should admit that I also find Gaitsgory’s notes very hard to understand. But the topic of chiral algebras is something that I find very interesting, and I’ve spent a lot of time reading that section.