Perelman declines 1M prize: "I have everything I want"
gazeta.ru
gazeta.ru
Another article in English, from Pravda: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/84114-0/
One of the more amusing auto-translated russian comments:
say, lives on a pension mom.
In place of my mother I would beat his frying pan. But not on the head.I'm going to guess at 'what if his mother lives on a pension? If I were his mother I'd beat him with a frying pan, but not on the head'.
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".
I love how they throw that in as if any of their readers will understand it*
* FYI, the Daily Mail is one of our tabloids, famous for claiming that just about anything causes cancer: http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/
IMO tabloids make people dumber. So just _don't_ read them, its bad for you.
I only head back once a month or so but drop me a line when you're there and I'll buy you a drink if I'm up :-)
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 hope he is secretly at work doing what he does best, away from all these distractions.
Maybe he's not as obstinate as we think he is. (Frying pan to the head notwithstanding)
Don't turn him into a lab rat for own amusement; don't visit that tabloids linked above.
The sad part is he’s probably going to be written off as eccentric and never receive help that could change his life substantially from the better.
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.
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 completely understand his decision. To an intellectual, a lot of the things that you would consider necessary, aren't.
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.
[1] At least, that's what I think you mean by "romantic".
Why does that point to choice more than possible depression problems? It is classic depressive behaviour.
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.
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.
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.
Here he is on the subway in Moscow: http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2007/06/15/perelman-in-a-...
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.
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=Ofw6ru8cHOUC&dq=the+mil...
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.
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.
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.
Anyone in Russia who has that kind of money also has body guards and private mansions with tall electrified fences.
(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..)
I can't find the exact story I read from before, though.
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.”
Isn't that odd?
I admire him.
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.
> 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.
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.
That's what I'm choosing to believe, anyway.
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.
That said, I agree that a lot of good could be done with the money. He should take it and ensure that it does good.
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.
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.
This case is exceptional because the $1M is no-strings attached.
javascript:location='http://translate.google.com/translate?u='+encodeURIComponent(location);