
Why is there no Nobel in mathematics? - nilmonibasak
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/node50.html
======
stuaxo
It's OK, there isn't one in economics either, they just stole the name..

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Controversies_and_criticisms)

~~~
rm999
That's a little misleading - despite some controversy it's a de facto nobel
prize:

>it is identified with [the original nobel prizes], and prizes are announced
with and awarded at the same ceremony

>The Prize is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences "in accordance
with the rules governing the award of the Nobel Prizes instituted through his
[Alfred Nobel's] will"

~~~
curlyquote
>The award’s real name is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in
Memory of Alfred Nobel.” It was not established by Nobel, but supposedly in
memory of Nobel. It’s a ruse and a PR trick, and I mean that literally. And it
was done completely against the wishes of the Nobel family.

>Members of the Nobel family are among the harshest, most persistent critics
of the economics prize, and members of the family have repeatedly called for
the prize to be abolished or renamed. In 2001, on the 100th anniversery of the
Nobel Prizes, four family members published a letter in the Swedish paper
Svenska Dagbladet, arguing that the economics prize degrades and cheapens the
real Nobel Prizes.

>Most recently, in 2004, three prominent Swedish scientists and members of the
Nobel committee published an open letter in a Swedish newspaper savaging the
fraudulent “scientific” credentials of the Swedish Central Bank Prize in
Economics. “The economics prize diminishes the value of the other Nobel
prizes. If the prize is to be kept, it must be broadened in scope and be
disassociated with Nobel,” they wrote in the letter, arguing that achievements
of most of the economists who win the prize are so abstract and disconnected
from the real world as to utterly meaningless.

If you'd like to read about the history of the scam that is the "Nobel Prize
in Economics", there's plenty more in this article:
[http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-
economi...](http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-economics)

~~~
rm999
I'm aware of the controversy, but it comes from a very vocal but small
minority. That alternet article you linked to is a great example of the absurd
bias and political agenda the minority has. Their main gripe is political, not
factual - the article is about how many of the prizes go to "theories that
concentrated wealth among the top 1%".

I called it a de facto prize, but it's also really a de jure prize: the winner
is determined in the same way as the others, the prize is presented at the
same ceremony as the others, and it's listed along the other nobel prizes on
official lists. The prize carries at least as much prestige as the other
prizes to both experts in the field and to the public.

Also, I don't see how family members of Nobel have any authority on the matter
(they don't), and I think the prize is far more meaningful and free of bias
than something like the peace prize.

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
Well, yeah, the prize is political because all who get Nobel Prizes in
Economics are keynsians of different sort. When you take guys like Krugman -
who has Nobel Prize in Economics - and just look at their track record and
what they are in favor of like this 2002 piece in which Krugman advocates the
FED to create a housing bubble:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-
needs...](http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-
create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6)

You really start wondering why complete idiots and morons like this are worthy
of the Nobel Prize.

And then his response to this piece when asked about it in 2013 is even worse
than the original piece. Krugman says in 2013 about his 2002 article: "What I
said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could
inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened."

Let me me repeat here for you this Nobel Prize Genius: "The ONLY way for the
FED to get traction in 2002 was to INFLATE HOUSING BUBBLE"

Really? Like really, really? That's the ONLY way? Go to a bubble, so it bursts
and destroys the US economy for years? He really, like really, really repeats
that nonsene in 2013? You must be kidding me! If he can't come up with better
idea to finish a crisis but with creating a bubble? Wow! Just wow!!!

And that's your Nobel Prize Winner in action. He's a moron. Yet, a professor
and nobel prize winner. Economics has nothing to do with science, it is too
rooted in ideologies. Left or right. But still, having prize for it is asking
for trouble. And that's just one example of Krugman saying nonsense. I could
go on and on.

~~~
wisty
Today I learnt that Friedrich Hayek and Eugene Fama are Keynsians.

~~~
mikecb
Milton Friedman too! Not to mention the dozens of others which were not
awarded to macroeconomists. Daniel Kahneman and Herbert Simon would especially
be surprised to be called Keynsians, given that they are a psychologist and a
political scientist, respectively.

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
They're not keynsians, sure. However, my point was that Nobel Prize in
Economics is as risky as Noble Prize in Political Science. Or Philosophy. Or
Ethics.

You don't do it. Period.

------
xbryanx
As an earth sciences student I heard exactly the same myth about Nobel being
cuckold by a geologist, explaining why there was no prize in geology. It's
funny to see that the myth knows no disciplinary boundaries.

------
theorique
That's covered by the Fields medal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal)

~~~
nonchalance
Fields medal is an award that explicitly targets younger mathematicians (below
40), whereas the nobel has no such stipulation

~~~
mikecb
The Fields medal for Economics is the John Bates Clark medal. I don't recall
how many who win the Clark go on to win the Riksbank Nobel, but it's a lot.

------
andyjohnson0
Google cache entry, since the link is currently down:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-
faq/node50.html)

------
daniel-cussen
There is the Abel prize, granted by the Norwegian government, of a similar
sum: $1,000,000 USD.

~~~
misnome
Also, the Fields medal

~~~
muxxa
The Fields medal is deliberately not open to Mathematicians over the age of 40
to encourage young Mathematicians. Very depressing for older Mathematicians.
Andrew Wiles was too old to win it, and Erdös is not a Field medalist
(although not sure if that's because of age or oversight).

~~~
Angostura
Do the rules explicitly say whether the age limit is in base 10?

~~~
bnegreve
I assume it says "forty" which is enough to avoid this kind of ambiguity.

Edit: Actually no, quoting the official website [1]:

> _A candidate 's 40th birthday must not occur before January 1st of the year
> of the Congress at which the Fields Medals are awarded. _

[1]
[http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/details/](http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/details/)

------
mathattack
_However, the story of some rivalry over a woman is obviously much more
amusing, and that 's why it will probably continue to be repeated._

Great storytellers never let facts get in the way of a good yarn!

------
conformal
there is less money in mathematics than in the sciences, unless you're the NSA
or similar ;)

that said, i have a history as a math and physics geek and am disappointed to
see a more limited patronage of mathematics compared to the sciences.
mathematics would not have advanced the same way it did without substantial
patronage from the european ruling class.

~~~
Mikeb85
Unless you want to work for a hedge fund, in which case there's a ton of money
to be made in mathematics...

------
forgottenpaswrd
When Nobel created the price there were not computers, so Math was very
similar to Philosophy, it became harder and harder to make great discoveries
by the law of diminishing returns, while with other sciences it was different.

------
topbanana
Can you prove there isn't?

------
m4tthumphrey
This is very strange timing for me, I was positive there was a Nobel in maths
and nearly said that instead of Medicine as the final quiz question last
night! Would have cost me £300 if I did and this thread would have been
horrible.

------
ihsw
Because the Nobel prizes are inherently political -- scientists and
governments alike needed to justify the enormous investment in the LHC, and
what better way than a token Nobel award?

The LHC may be worth the investment but the Nobel prizes aren't any indicator
of it.

~~~
icebraining
Whether a public work like the LHC is worth the investment _is_ a political
decision. A award that only measured its scientific accomplishments could
never tell you whether it was worth the investment or not.

