
Yitang “Tom” Zhang and fame in mathematics - CapitalistCartr
http://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/the-twin-prime-hero-rp
======
ithinkinstereo
I found his old beef with his graduate advisor interesting.

From wikipedia:

"Zhang's Ph.D. work was on the Jacobian conjecture. After graduation, Zhang
had a hard time finding an academic position. In a 2013 interview with
Nautilus magazine, Zhang said he did not get a job after graduation. "During
that period it was difficult to find a job in academics. That was a job market
problem. Also, my advisor did not write me letters of recommendation." The
reason behind this is that Zhang's research pointed out the mistakes made by
his advisor Tzuong-Tsieng Moh's previous work. Moh was very unhappy with this
and refused to write the job recommendation letter for Zhang. Zhang made this
claim again in George Csicsery’s documentary film Counting From Infinity while
discussing his difficulties at Purdue and in the years that followed. Tzuong-
Tsieng Moh, his Ph.D. advisor at Purdue, said that Zhang never came back to
him requesting recommendation letters.[8] In a detailed profile published in
The New Yorker magazine in February 2015, Alec Wilkinson wrote Zhang "parted
unhappily" with Moh, and that Zhang 'left Purdue without Moh’s support, and,
having published no papers, was unable to find an academic job'"

His advisor wrote his own version of events here:
[https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ttm/ZhangYt.pdf](https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ttm/ZhangYt.pdf)

Crazy how this one guy derailed a genius like Zhang. Glad to see he found his
way back, but sad that he had to endure almost a decade in the wilderness - at
one point even homeless (living out of his car) - working minimum wage jobs
just to get by.

~~~
pmiller2
It actually sounds like the "having published no papers" bit was the primary
reason he wasn't able to get a job. Not having an advisor recommendation is
not a good sign, but it's hard to argue with published work.

~~~
justicezyx
I don't think a PhD can get any _interview_ for academic jobs at all without
adviser's reference letter.

It's worse than no publications.

------
mherrmann
I find this very inspiring, because it seems like he's not necessarily a
genius but just worked really hard and didn't give up. Also, he was in his
late fifties when he published his proof, going against the commonly held
belief that mathematicians do their best work before 40.

[edit:] Peter Sarnak from Princeton does call him a genius. When you read
about him online, you actually find several other people who have known/worked
with him to call him that as well. So I guess I was wrong.

> Why did you solve this problem and not somebody else?

> I think the important reason is that I persisted for several years. I didn’t
> give up.

> How long did you work on your conjecture?

> I worked on my conjecture for four years. I worked on it seven days a week.
> I didn’t take any breaks almost. If we count the time I spent thinking about
> the problem, then it was more than 10 hours a day. If you count sitting in
> front of a desk or using a computer, then it was five or six hours a day.

~~~
rifung
One thing I think you will notice both with him and others who are successful
was that they never were interested in fame or success. He seems to do
mathematics merely because he enjoys it.

What I'm trying to say is that perhaps you shouldn't worry too much about
whether you are a genius or smart enough but just try to be happy by doing
something you enjoy.

~~~
argonaut
Yeah, also it's worth pointing out that he _finished a PhD in math_. That is
already genius level mathematics as far as most people are concerned;
certainly relative to your average undergraduate STEM student.

------
imh
> Q: Is the most likely application of this result in cryptography?

> A: Yes, this should be true.

> Q: Are you interested in cryptography?

> A: Not so much.

Pure mathematicians are awesome.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
And:

> Q: What do you think of Grigori Perelman, who turned down the Fields Medal?

> A: I think it was because of his personality also. Maybe he himself was very
> proud of himself. Maybe he looked down on other people, even looked down on
> very important prizes and medals.

> Q: Would you accept a medal?

> A: Yes.

> Q: What would you do with the money?

> A: Maybe the best way would be to give the money to my wife. Let her deal
> with this issue.

Wow.

~~~
sho_hn
> Wow.

There's quite a few cultures where it's a traditional norm to put one's wife
in charge of the household finances (cultures in which that wife tends to be
stuck at home running it, whereas the husband is mostly home to sleep and
otherwise working himself to death). The husband is given sort of an allowance
to spend. It's not a strange idea for many people on the planet.

------
mherrmann
There's an interesting 1-hour-long documentary about him:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA)

~~~
mherrmann
Follow-up video where Terence Tao explains in very simple terms the history of
the problem(s) and how people improved on Zhang's 70,000,000 constant
afterwards:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp06oGD4m00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp06oGD4m00)

------
pmiller2
The article mentioned Polymath 8, which lowered the bound from H=7*10^7 to
4680. This bound has since been lowered[0] to 246. \--- [0]:
[https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/polymath8b-ix-
larg...](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/polymath8b-ix-large-
quadratic-programs/#comment-297456)

~~~
ctchocula
I believe it's 246 iff the generalized Elliott-Halberstam is true, and 4680
iff it's false.

edit: Never mind. You're right. It's 6 assuming the generalized
Elliott–Halberstam conjecture is true, and 246 without assuming the
conjecture.

------
keithpeter
" _What would you say to a young student who wants to solve a problem?_

 _Keep going. Do not easily give up._ "

Sounds like good advice.

------
nullnilvoid
Such a huge inspiration. He has achieved the impossible with all odds against
him.

------
chenster
Yitang Zhang and the Twin Prime Conjecture [2015
Documentary][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA)

------
moomin
Is Zhang a genius? Maybe not, but consider the possibility that he is. We have
a particular expectation of what a genius looks and sounds like that he
doesn't conform to.

Jeremy Lin, again, didn't look like a star, except to a few geeks who reckoned
his numbers told a different story to that his own coach believed.

How many people like Lin and Zhang are we missing? Those who, given a little
more opportunity, could have become obviously exceptional.

~~~
Sonthun
I can't endorse the movie "Whiplash" because it is so crass, but it takes an
interesting look at what it takes to be truly great. I don't think we "miss"
people like Lin and Zhang because they make themselves. Intelligence and skill
really make a small part of the overall requirement for success. Hard work,
perseverance, preparation, and choosing the right problems to work on are
really more important.

~~~
moomin
But the problem stands no matter which qualities you think are important. Lin,
for instance, was just plain lucky. He was due to be dropped but a spate of
injuries gave him an opportunity to shine he hadn't had before. Equally, you
can talk about any number of desirable qualities Zuckerberg and Brin had but
you can't ignore the fact that they went to accelerators for gifted children
rather than a public school in the rough end of town.

------
auggierose
This guy sounds like a plant. A plant which is great at mathematics.

