
[It is official:] Russian math genius ignores $1 million Millennium Prize - ez77
http://en.rian.ru/strange/20100608/159350481.html
======
SomeCallMeTim
They probably sent him an email with the subject, "You've won a million
dollars!" and it was ignored as spam.

~~~
vrode
Maybe I can adopt it as a spam scam idea. I can target individuals in academia
and hump their wet dreams of greatness.

~~~
abecedarius
Vernor Vinge wrote a story kinda like that:
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6805/full/407679a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6805/full/407679a0.html)

------
Switchfoot
I think to a point, a lot of us want to believe that Perelman is truly noble
and and dedicated to the purity of mathematics. It would serve as a great
fable of the modern age. A man challenging the tripe and political aspects of
society we have created.

If you've read "Perfect Rigor", the book by Masha Gessen, it shows as far as I
can tell that some of that is true. He doesn't believe in profiting from
mathematics. At the same time, some of the stories make you wonder what he
wants from others:

When he was 17 he taught at a summer math camp for gifted math kids like
himself, he would give 15 year-olds problems that were 2x the normal even for
them without consideration to their actual skills and then attempt to deprive
them of lunch if they couldn't finish half of it.

"A year later, when [the author] asked Rukshin [Perelman's childhood mentor]
to get a copy of Morgan and Tian's new book to Perelman, Rukshin demurred; the
last time he had tried to pass on a gift from a foreign admirer, he said,
Perelman had lobbed the gift-a classical-music CD-at Rukshin's head."

Nevertheless, his brilliance at math is undeniable. I just don't think his
reasoning is particularly honorable from what I've read of it.

Note: I realize the excerpts might be a bit tangential, but I thought it was
of some value to mention some of his odd behavior.

~~~
guano___
And like you said, he was 17 at the time.

------
JabavuAdams
From the limited amount I've read about this, he seems to believe that
academic mathematics is corrupt and unethical. Basically, he objects to the
whole machinery that would award him this prize.

~~~
Jun8
That and he feels slighted by other researchers, especially Shing-Tung Yau.

Edit: If you're interested about Yau, here's a NYT article
(<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/science/17yau.html?_r=1>)

"But even his admirers say he has a political side. “As Shiing-Shen Chern’s
successor as emperor of Chinese mathematics,” Deane Yang, a professor of
mathematics at Polytechnic University in Brooklyn and an old family friend,
wrote in a letter to The New Yorker, “Yau has an outsized ego and great
ambition, and has done things that dismay his peers.” But, Dr. Yang said, Dr.
Yau has been a major force for good in mathematics and in China, a prodigious
teacher who has trained 39 Ph.D.’s."

~~~
abstractbill
In my experience the best revenge is usually to live a happy life. If it was
me, I'd use the $1M to do that. Even assuming he's completely non-
materialistic, I find it hard to imagine there's _nothing_ Perelman could
spend the money on that would make him even a little happier.

~~~
motters
To a mathematician, some things are far more important than mere money.
Accepting tribute money from an organisation you believed to be fundamentally
corrupt would be to become one of the very people you despise.

~~~
abstractbill
_To a mathematician, some things are far more important than mere money._

I know, my PhD is in pure mathematics - I've seen up-close that mathematicians
can be an odd bunch ;)

Using the money to fund some kind of an _alternative_ to the organisation he
believes is corrupt, surely wouldn't make him corrupt though, just to take one
example?

~~~
kqr2
In some ways, he's "spending" his million dollars to make a public statement
about his view of the organization.

Had he just accepted the prize, there would probably be little mention of it
in the main stream media.

~~~
abstractbill
That's very true - good point. I wonder what it would actually cost to make
this much of a public statement if he spent the money directly that way -
maybe it is comparable.

~~~
Groxx
Oh, probably more. How much does human interest cost? This has captured quite
a few people's attention, _especially_ considering it's catching people _not_
in mathematics.

~~~
abstractbill
_How much does human interest cost?_

I couldn't resist thinking about this a bit more. Something comparable would
be firefox's double-page New York Times ad, which apparently cost about $200k
(<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007103.html>) and certainly
reached a _lot_ of non-mathematicians.

Even though Perelman's action has generated quite a bit of press attention, my
gut feeling is he could have _paid_ for even more attention if he chose to use
the prize money to raise awareness directly.

That said, if he _really_ wanted to get maximum exposure, he could continue to
ignore the prize for almost a year, but accept it at the last minute and
_then_ spend it all on ads telling the world how corrupt academic mathematics
is ;)

~~~
ryoshu
Just because someone is a genius mathematician doesn't mean he is good at
numbers.

~~~
gruseom
A point that non-mathematicians will never understand! I used to always
correct people by saying, "No, you mean _arithmetic_ ," until I realized how
hopelessly pedantic it was.

------
T_S_
I'm guessing this fellow is just a little different, and very very stubborn.
That might also be the reason he solved the problem.

~~~
keefe
and what would tesla have accomplished if he had just taken money seriously,
rather than spending years digging ditches (literally)? If someone offers you
a million dollars and you don't take it, you're acting totally insane (unless
you already have several million laying about).

~~~
greyman
But have you thought about this: Why it is that no one with the mentality you
are presenting here was able to solve that millenium problem? Maybe it was
solvable only by someone you would call "insane".

Same with Tesla - if he had taken money seriously, it's probable that he would
accomplish less, because everyone has only a limited capacity for things one
can "take seriously". He just took other things seriously (and was quite
successfull with those).

~~~
keefe
>Why it is that no one with the mentality you are presenting here was able to
solve that millenium problem?

I obviously can't answer why this one guy got there first. Plenty of people
with a sane attitude about money have solved significant problems, Edison for
example.

>it's probable that he would accomplish less

There's no reason to believe this. There's a wide spectrum of how much energy
you have to put into things. It's certainly true that there are only so many
hours in a day, but why does handling the unpleasant necessities of life
(proper nutrition, exercise, basic money management) sanely have to be a net
loss? You don't have to be a dollar hungry millionaire in the making, just use
basic common sense. Einstein for example lived a sane and competent life. So
did Niels Bohr and Stephen Hawking and numerous other people that made
enormous contributions.

------
thefool
I think a lot of people are missing the point. He has already decided that he
has enough money. That's why he retired, because he saved up enough money to
live the rest of his life.

It's a very russian mentality (I speak as someone who's parents moved from the
USSR a year before I was born).

------
noonespecial
Like many contented men, he probably just wants to go on doing what he's
doing. He rightly intuits that there is no way he can be associated with this
prize and have that happen, even if he immediately gave it all away. He's
probably annoyed by the whole affair.

~~~
hugh3
It's not just contented men, though. Very depressed people will also resist
any sort of change to their routine since they assume it will only make
matters worse.

I can't imagine what it feels like to spend years trying to prove something
like the Poincare conjecture, then succeeding, then trying to find something
else to do. I don't get the impression that Perelman is a happy man, though.

------
anr
Sylvia Nasar wrote a nice article about the Conjecture:

<http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2>

'Nevertheless, Perelman told Ball that he had no intention of accepting [the
Fields Medal]. “I refuse,” he said simply.'

I can't help but admire the guy.

------
nearestneighbor
Wrong title. He ignores the award ceremony. Still has one year to collect the
money.

------
MrRage
On a tangential subject, if it's proven then why keep calling it the Poincare
conjecture? It's now a theorem.

~~~
pmiller2
Likely for the same reason Fermat's Last Theorem was called a theorem for
hundreds of years before it was proved. My guess is cultural inertia.

~~~
hugh3
Ah, that's different: Fermat's Last Theorem was called a theorem because
Fermat claimed to have proved it. Taking him at his word, it's been a theorem
since 1637.

------
zavulon
Probably the only man in the world who doesn't care about money (and not just
saying that)

~~~
frou_dh
Or the only one you've heard of?

~~~
zavulon
I've heard many people say the same thing, but I'm not sure I would
necessarily believe them without proof. Him, I believe.

------
edeion
This reminds me of Alexander Grothendieck (Fields Medal 1966), who resigned
from one of the most prestigious French maths positions (IHES) on ethical
grounds. He now lives on reclusion (or the exact opposite of it), as far as is
known.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grothendieck>

------
rokhayakebe
Some call is poverty. Others call it something else. Maybe there is more to
life than money.

~~~
swolchok
Even if there really is more to life than X, that does not imply that X is not
a useful part of life. (I guess I take issue with both the saying in general
and this particular application of it.)

~~~
greyman
Depends. If he can now spend all his time doing what he likes to do, why he
would want an additional burden of managing all those money? And even if
sometimes in the future he will be in a serious need of money, many math
institutions or universities will be more than happy to employ him. So even
without accepting that money, he can still do what he loves to do all his
time. Happy man :)

~~~
billforsternz
He could choose a way of managing the money that was optimized for simplicity.
For example putting it all in a one low risk low return income generating
instrument. It's hard for me to believe that the stress involved in picking up
a decent cheque every month for the rest of his life wouldn't be outweighed by
the benefits.

To me his actions are those of a "difficult" person. Very hard for a more
relaxed (dare I say "normal") person to understand and rationalize. So I
wouldn't bother. As others say, maybe that's part of what makes him different
and special.

~~~
Dirt_McGirt
Where can I find a low risk investment that yields a decent monthly return on
1 million?

~~~
billforsternz
By decent I mean "worthwhile" or "significant". I specifically didn't say
"enough to replace the income of a comfortably placed person in a first world
country". 2% pa yields what, $1600 per month ? Don't you think that would be
worthwhile to someone living in poverty in Russia ?

------
zandorg
I wrote a cheque but the margin was too small.

------
itistoday
There was fascinating discussion about this already on HN (several times),
anyone have links to those discussions?

~~~
obsaysditto
Perhaps... <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1213150>

~~~
ronnier
That's it, which includes a link to a very detailed article that anyone
interested in this subject should read:
<http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2>

------
lancebailey
clearly he didn't do it for the money

------
olaf
Yessss!!!

------
mumrah
Assuming he doesn't care for the money, it seems like this waste of an
opportunity to help some people - and rather selfish. Perhaps the Clay
institute will do something good with the money (scholarships?)

~~~
tyweir
"According to Carlson [Head of Clay], the money will be sent to a charity
foundation if Perelman does not claim it within one year."

~~~
zandorg
Anyone got a fake ID and a false beard?

~~~
gaustin
No, but I've got a fake beard and a false ID. Will that do?

~~~
pier0
Can you count in Russian?

~~~
JabavuAdams
adeen dva tree chiteeriet piat shess sem vosem dyevit dyesit

I can has prize now?

~~~
eru
Try: один, два, три, четыри, пять, шесть, семь, восемь, девять, десять.

~~~
JabavuAdams
That's what I said. Surely I get extra credit for transliterating it to what
it sounds like to a native english speaker?

------
mmphosis
_I don’t use money...

and I'm of a mind that everyone who contents themself with trying to maintain
a financial state is contenting themself with laziness... aka Nazis.

Stop using money.

There is nothing more important than knowing that 'predestiny' is real and
absolute- in that is truly the end of fear.

Consider that a thing can only be a product of it's experience or be a useless
goof.

Content yourself with pride and I call you out. Content yourself with pride
and you are a flailing child without worthy opinion.

Pride is goofy. Proud is the last thing anyone of consciousness wants to be.

Pride is a lie. Give me my due by considering what I say, lest you be totally
without honour... Predestiny is real and absolute. Free-will is not real.
Whatever is perceived as a 'choice' can only ever be experience reacting to
the now.

This is about everything.

Consider me. NOW. There is nothing more important than this. This is the truth
that saves.

GIVE UNTIL YOU DIE

David_ <http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/money.htm>

