Said to be the world's cleverest man, Dr Grigory Perelman, 44, lives as a recluse...
Leave it to the daily mail to add an extra layer of hyperbolic bullshit. As if it weren't a fascinating story already, he now has to be "the world's cleverest man".
No, seriously no. They are pollution. If you read them no matter how cynical you are your subconscious will gobble up the "facts" only to spew them at you later as "truth" without the association with the source.
IMO tabloids make people dumber. So just _don't_ read them, its bad for you.
There are differing levels of pollution, though. The Daily Mail is, IMHO, almost "evil" in its level of ridiculousness. It exists mostly to rile up the darker sentiments held by middle England. It's Fox News in paper form.
The Sun, on the other hand, is the ultimate tabloid (in terms of sales) but is more playful and aware of its role as a form of entertainment. The Sun and the Daily Mail couldn't be any different.
They were famous back in the '80s for ludicrous headlines like "London Bus Found On Moon" and "Aliens Turned Our Son Into An Olive". I can't recall seeing it on the news stands lately.
I give you 1 week before you change your mind. I initially found them very amusing but now I cringe every time I pass a news stand or otherwise catch sight of the tabloid front pages.
I've lived in Ireland before and I would get the British tabloids an armload at a time. Something about being able to point to one over coffee and say 'look at this.'
The whole article read like it was straight out of The Onion (a parody newspaper). The caption under the photo had me cracking up: A rare photo of bearded and reclusive genius Dr Grigory Perelman.
That's actually not that bad. Google voice does a number on translations when the message is in another language: "My telephone number on the most gorgeous of and ideas. Fits in."
The problem with Chrome's translate feature is that it keeps claiming that random pages are in some language that they aren't in, like Afrikaans, and offering to "translate" them. It's a bit annoying.
I had some broken (junk, seemingly random bytes rendered to screen as text) responses coming from IIS yesterday, and ended up with some very confused users asking me "why is the page in arabic?". Turns out, Chrome was telling them it was in arabic, and offering to translate it.
When we think back on Newton or Einstein, we don't say 'he won an Nobel and pocketed a cool million'. We remember them for their results, which changed the way humanity sees the world. Granted, if it was me I probably wouldn't have declined, but then, I wouldn't have found the proof either. In 40 years nobody will remember all this circus around medals, awards, and money, just his result, which is the way he wants it. Feynman also cursed the day he received the Nobel and wished these awards bodies were more discrete and privately gave an opportunity to decline without all the publicity circus.
I hope he is secretly at work doing what he does best, away from all these distractions.
I get the feeling that Perelman's a purist, in every sense of the word. He gets the math done, and then he steps away and feels happy that he's contributed something to humanity.
Maybe he's not as obstinate as we think he is. (Frying pan to the head notwithstanding)
The thing he tries to avoid is extra attention to his persona. With all the media buzz, I feel sorry for him, tabloid "journalists" will keep distracting him for a while now. Let the man live his life the way he wants to; leave him alone. People should respect his decision however impossible it may be to comprehend for an average money-driven individual.
Don't turn him into a lab rat for own amusement; don't visit that tabloids linked above.
It's very similar to something Feynman said when he found he won the Nobel Prize. I can't find the quote specifically, but he essentially said "is there any way to turn it down?" But he recognized that he couldn't and it was easier to just accept it. But he bemoaned that forever afterwards he was no longer Richard Feynman, he was Richard Feynman Nobel Prize winner. That is all from his book "What do you care what other people think?"
I read that, when he gave technical talks away from Caltech, he would have to use a pseudonym, so that the room wasn't packed full of people wanting to see "Famous Nobel Prize winning Feynman" give a talk. This way only the appropriate people in the physics dept would come to see his latest results.
Both this anecdote and the parent comment can be found in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". (N.B. The quote marks are correct: the title itself is a quote.)
Or maybe he just isn't interested in money or fame.
Don't be so rash in passing out judgment.
I once asked a mathematician what he says he does when people ask him. He said that "I do math, teaching is my job, the way i make my living but what I do is math". Didn't quite expect that answer, and he's internationally known for his work too.
"Or maybe he just isn't interested in money or fame."
There's a big difference between not interested in money or fame, and living in a 1 bedroom apartment, sleeping on a dirty matress, and living with a roach infestation.
I see his choice comparable to the one often taken by start up founders when they realize that all they need is a computer and decide to be frugal and live off somebody's couch or work from their smelly garage.
I completely understand his decision. To an intellectual, a lot of the things that you would consider necessary, aren't.
You are attempting to fit a square into a circle here.
Working in a "smelly garage" or from a "friends couch" as a founder in the USA dreaming of success is Apples to Oranges vs. living in a roach motel, on a dirty mattress, turning away visitors from behind a closed door, in Russia, since 2003.
One is the romantic prototype of an entrepreneur, one is an unimaginably harsh and depressing life from which this guy has completely denied himself sanctuary.
You have zero idea of what he thinks. If he is depressed about living with his mom, he hides it well. He is depressed about teh state of politics in math, not about his lifestyle. He didn't say, "I have no choice," he said, "I have everything I need." Those are not the words of a depressed man.
Furthermore, a founder couch surfing does not hate their existence and only endures it because they hope to strike it big. A founder is having fun working on their dream and will later have a different kind of fun when they later strike it rich.
lA friend of mine hit it out of the park. When I was living in Parkdale (a poor neighborhood in Toronto that is fighting gentrification tooth and nail), he visited my apartment. His words? "This reminds me of my college days in Montréal. Those were good times!"
I later asked him whether money changed anything. He said, and I kid you not, that he and his wife used to drive to Grateful Dead concerts, now they flew and could take friends with them.
I am not so sure Perelman needs anything else. His mathematical achievement is on par with anything else done in the last century. If this were business, he would be Gates or Ellison or Buffet. If one of those guys declined an award that had no cash value, we wouldn't blink. Why should Perelman desire an award that has no mathematical insight attached? It literally has nothing to offer him, nothing.
Money is your currency. Knowledge is his. Don't accuse him of a harsh and depressing life until you can make a case that his life lacks the things that matter to him.
You disagree with me making a generalization, yet you sling one right back at me in your "Money is your currency." comment above, which I guess brings us sort of full circle.
Beyond that, well argued.
Let me clarify my original comment, and then I’ll shut up on this:
There is, in my experience, a flat acceptance of eccentricity in brilliant minds.
Yet, when those of less accomplishment display similar eccentricities, peers may be more apt to question behavior.
The evidence in that article, when measured against a "normal" man suggests to me depression, or mental disease.
My comment was made in earnest, I hope that somebody along the way has made that consideration - ultimately we're arguing the same thing, don't make assumptions.
If the big difference is that the first one is romanticized[1] and the second one isn't, I'm not entirely certain they're all that different (although it's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding you). It's not like the guy hasn't had chances to change his situation; his refusal to do so suggests that he's in it more or less willingly.
[1] At least, that's what I think you mean by "romantic".
Yeah, and there's a big difference between the hyperbole of "roach infested" in an article that clearly benefits from creating a juxtaposition and what his reality actually is.
I've lived in a "roach infested" apartment on Beacon st. (most aptmt buildings have some) in Brookline Mass on a "dirty couch" (coffee stains--my own damn fault) and paid quite a lot of money to do that... But if you're writing a story, you're going to focus on the drama.
the story is actually pretty recent, he was awarded the Millennium prize last Thur, the previous one he declined was back in 2006. but figuratively speaking this story goes back to Diogenes, so yes, it is old
A while ago I read through a book called "The Millennium Problems[1].
According to the author, its unlikely that anyone driven by the money would be the ones solving the problem. If you really want money, and you are good enough to solve these problems, there are much easier ways to make a million.
Of course, that doesn't mean that whoever solves P vs NP wouldn't take the million, but looking at it this way, Perelman's decision doesn't surprise me too much.
P.S. I wouldn't recommend this book. It attempts to explain the problems but I didn't feel that it did a good job. Reading the P vs NP section (the only problem on the list I understand) I was depressed at how poorly it described the problem.
He has abandonded mathematics. I don't know what he works on now.
Currently he mentions that he has everything he wants and doesn't want to be paraded like an animal in the zoo for everyone to see. He doesn't want money and honors.
What has alienated him from mathematics is others dishonesty. Read the "Manifold Destiny" article from New Yorker by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2). In there you'll find a reference to Shing-Tung Yau. Quote from the article:
As for Yau, Perelman said, “I can’t say I’m outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.”
Next time when I want to publish a paper, I will take the work of someone else, claim that it's unreadable and difficult to understand, "clarify" parts that were unreadable, and put my name on it. I just cannot believe that things like that are common practice for some researchers.
That was a great read, thanks.
It's strange that people allow their lives to be disrupted by money. It seems like if you won a million, you can continue living the life you have now plus $1 million in CDs or something.
To me, the negative effect that windfall amounts of money have on a lot of people is the barest example of how people often function better under constraints. Living freely is hard.
"It seems like if you won a million, you can continue living the life you have now plus $1 million in CDs or something."
Maybe if nobody knows that you've got the million (not the case here.) Otherwise the money may draw unwanted attention - "friends" asking you to lend them some or even criminals trying to convince you to part with the money.
This is especially a problem in Russia, where having even modest sums can draw the attention of local goons. I don't think being a famous mathematician is any protection from having Grisha the neighborhood limb breaker show up at your door.
I never thought of it that way. But that is certainly a interesting angle to it. He might be puting himself and his mom in danger if others thought he has a $1m.
Anyone in Russia who has that kind of money also has body guards and private mansions with tall electrified fences.
My life plays the lottery and I've thought about this stuff before. I believe you have to do publicity here and there's no way I'd want to live where I do now with people knowing what we look like and how much we won.
(Not that I would anyway, I'd be throwing $500k down on an EB-5 and moving all of our asses to California. But still..)
Not that he's any safer if he doesn't accept the money - local limb breaker may come and try to convince him to take it or more probably won't even know whether he accepted or not.
This reminds me of a story about how Manu Ginobili's family, who refused to move to the US, has to live with police protection to keep from being kidnapped.
I can't find the exact story I read from before, though.
It is selfish for the intellectually gifted to not give back the gifts of new knowledge.
Perelman has given fruits, but being as selfish as he is now makes him as good as dead. Imagine if Ramanujan had went back to India and given up just after the Ramanujan conjecture. Or if Erdos had called it quits shortly after working on the probabilistic method.
How is he selfish? He doesn't owe anyone anything.
> Perelman has given fruits, but being as selfish as he is now makes him as good as dead.
This is one of the dumbest and offensive thing I have read here in YN.
> Imagine if Ramanujan had went back to India and given up just after the Ramanujan conjecture. Or if Erdos had called it quits shortly after working on the probabilistic method.
And what would happen? Nothing. Humanity will still be here without their contribution.
It was truly painful to read this comment. When you read books like Atlas shrugged, you see them talking about a horrible kind of moral - but it is hard to believe there really is such people (I know better, already, but still..) - and here it is, on display.
Let me list the stupid assumptions contained on those lines:
* New knowledge is simply a gift - not a product of effort.
* People that produce knowledge have obligation of giving it to society.
* On the top of it, now he is now "as good as dead". So let me see if I understood: leeches like jimmyjim (who probably never produced anything useful in his life) should be allowed to go on, while people like Perelman - who already given us a very valuable gift - should now die? Because he is tired, or refuses to continue to do so? Is he some kind of slave to humanity?
> Imagine if Ramanujan had went back to India and given up just after the Ramanujan conjecture.
Maybe he would have a happier life for himself and his family? Maybe he would change and become a great writer? A mass murderer? A drunk? Who fucking cares, and why the fuck does it matter? It is his life, and he can do whatever he wants with it.
I regret saying that he's "as good as dead". My excuse is that I was sleep-deprived and frustrated for personal reasons when I wrote that.
That said, let's imagine another scenario. In a late night, your mother is being raped right before my eyes. It is my moral obligation to report this, isn't it? Of course, I can choose to exercise my free right and not report this incident, because, it's my life, and I can do whatever I want with it... but if I have the capability to do so, I think I should rather satisfy my moral obligation. But maybe that's just me. And maybe you'd see better if you pulled your head out of Ayn Rand's arse.
Perelman has the capacity and capability to give fascinating gifts of knowledge to this world, and I hope that we all come to respect his wishes (to honor him in a way that it doesn't offend him), so that the newfound knowledge is used for good to better mankind.
yeah...i totally agree with you...rather i say, we should pass a law and punish those f'kin genius bastards for being smart. Lets just force them to innovate and sell it to the society for free...after all they owe us...
hmm .. hmm .. ohh wait but what if they go on strike..
shrugs .. who cares?
Seems your forgetting the part about where his parents provided him with a place to live, food, and security while he got the education that allowed him to win a million-dollar prize. Not to mention the fact that they probably paid for his tuition, textbooks, and anything else he needed to learn mathematics. According to Wikipedia: "his early mathematical education occurred at the Leningrad Secondary School #239, a specialized school with advanced mathematics and physics programs. In 1982 [16 years old], as a member of the USSR team competing in the International Mathematical Olympiad, an international competition for high school students, he won a gold medal, achieving a perfect score." You don't get to do all that as a kid without the monetary support of your parents. I wonder if Perelman's parents had forced him to work in a factory instead of enrolling him in advanced mathematics programs, would he have achieved the same results?
Do the parents deserve a comfortable retirement for their efforts? I say yes. I say every parent that supports the education of their children does. It's just that most kids don't have a million dollars lying around that they can give to their parents. Personally I think it's unconscionable not to secure the financial stability of your family given the opportunity. If anything, just keep the money lying around for medical expenses and college tuition. Perelman should have used the money to support his parents and lay the groundwork for the educational success of his kids. I can't think of an ethical justification not to do so.
Public education is free in the United States too if your parents or guardian pay taxes. Whether the parents directly pay for tuition or not is not really the main thrust of my argument. The point is that supportive parents are critical for the academic success of children. If (when) I had the opportunity to ensure my parents would never have to worry about their mortgage or an unexpected medical bill I would take it. I'd send them on a nice vacation too while I was at it. Personally I think it's the least you can do in return for having supportive parents.
Of course, there's a possibility that Perelman's parents were not supportive. But in my experience the majority of gifted children have supportive parents.
It's safe to assume that Perelman could probably make as much every year or two (on Wall St. and elsewhere). So, cockroaches or not, he really doesn't need their money (all that much).
Trading has nothing to do with it. The most notoriously stressful positions in finance are that of analyst and ibanker, neither of which entail any trading.
Another article in English, from Pravda: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/84114-0/