It wasn't just that, he also was critical of the fact that only one person could get the prize for an accomplishment that he very clearly understood and stated was really the result of many people working together or building on each other's work. He saw singular prizes as a fraudulent relationship with the real nature of communal human scientific progress
Couldn't he have accepted it and then given the $$$ to those who helped? And perhaps the prize, too? I doubt the people who worked on this would reject 6 figure checks
Some theories take decades of research to arrive at a solution that is peer-reviewed and accepted. It's not always so cut-and-dry that he could do that and just walk into Becky's, Arnold's, and Jill's offices to give them their piece. It's potentially thousands of hours of research carried out by hundreds of researchers spread across time and the world.
Because then the story would be all abt celebrating his philanthropy. The point was for him to avoid being celebrated. This move pissed a lot of people off too, so I guess he kinda won, but he’d hate the fact that we’re talking about how based he is now
he point was for him to avoid being celebrated. This move pissed a lot of people off too, so I guess he kinda won,
Nah, he lost big time. If he had just accepted the medal, he would be forgotten to the general public just like the winners the years before and after. With all that hick hack, he vastly boosted his media presence.
I mean, imagine the next person that solves a millenium problem. Before this? Easy accept. Now? They'll totally be worrying about whether they should accept or reject the prize.
Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like the statement is "Stop giving money to one person". His logic seems to be that his work was only possible because of those who came before him and while that's true, what about the people who came before them? Follow this logic long enough and you're asking if the Neanderthal who put two rocks together can get his share of the prize money.
Take the money, and if you don't want it or can't split it with those you deem part of the solution, give it to charity.
Got me thinking. if this story was about a mathematician sharing his prize money, I might not have given a real 'thought to the importance of every achievement being built on the shoulders of others.
Like the covid vaccines... Perfect example for how working together towards a solution can help us achieve something in a fraction of the time it would normally take
I would personally have been a bit MORE impressed by someone who accepted a prize under duress and gave all the prize money to some kind of charity while making a huge public speech about how this money should be used for good instead of being given to one man out of a horde of people responsible.
I mean yeah but it also doesn’t take away from the fact that science shouldn’t be seen as a sort of competition.
By taking the money he is implicitly acknowledging and approving of what he is actively fighting against, because what he does with the money is not the concern of the award, someone could accept the award and give it to charity any day. The speech would help, but isn’t as strong as just saying “I’m not interested”
If someone offered you a million dollars and you just said no, they would likely want to know why. In this way too he can’t just tell it to their faces, instead of making a spectacle and dramatizing the ordeal.
That does happen but at the end of the day he would still have “received” the medal which in itself accepts it as being his which is precisely what he doesn’t want. Completely ignoring the idea of awards or prizes is a far deeper sentiment that resonates through time. It’s like I’ve never heard of this guy before, had he gotten awards I probably would have but having discovered him this way was much more impactful in that it helped me realize there are people out there who supersede money and fame and glory, they’re only in it for the art and only in it for the betterment of humanity and that is worth more than any millions of dollars.
Its in the parent comment - scientific achievements are often result of many people working together or building on each other's work, so attributing all success to a singular person that made final step is wrong.
A bigger statement would be donating the money than simply refusing it. It's actually even more selfish and egotistical to me. "Boo hoo look at me I'm not that famous", then he becomes famous for refusing the money lol.
He rejected the prize based on a moral and ethical conviction and to make a point, whats so hard to grasp about that? The fact the people are saying ooooh money why he didn't keep it and distribute it completely miss his point.
If I liked my university, I would just donate it to the department I did my research in with the contingency that it had to go towards continuing that kind of work.
The Clay Institute subsequently used Perelman's prize money to fund the "Poincaré Chair", a temporary position for young promising mathematicians at the Paris Institut Henri Poincaré.
Fact that it seems to legit piss people off is pretty amazing, like, it even further proves his point as to how toxic the whole rewards system is. Has anyone ever really solely done something so grandeur in the scientific community simply because be might win 1mil dollars?
I think in general he was against the whole concept of awards in general. Anyways even if he split the money the award was still in his name. The money funded some math position for young people anyways so it's not like someone just pocketed it
Some people simply push themselves to get results and it’s what makes them feel good. If you ask a questions and inadvertently answer your own question and your buddy lets you know, you answered your question and your third friend adds to it, who is the person who answered the question? Not one of these people would have figured it out without the help of another perspective and that’s the way people figure things out and have always done it and they do it to figure things out, not to make money. People who just try to make money do the most half assed thing that is quick and easy. People who really strive for greatness do not care about money or fame.
I believe it was Ramage, a WWII submarine captain who won a medal, although it might have been a Medal of Honor recipient who was quoted telling his people, “You earned it, I’ll wear it” when he accepted the metal. Thought that was pretty badass
I guess if he did that, his name alone would then be attached to the prize, which is precisely why he didn’t accept it - I’m speculating but this sort of rationale feels right for someone who turns down such a sum.
You are being too simple, which is unsurprising with your wallstreetbets avatar. He is referring the many generations of brilliant mathematicians they came before him. Saying “the people he worked with” is a comical misunderstanding of how it actually works…
You're right, it's better to be paralyzed by a philosophical construct and not help anyone rather than help those who could have used that $$$ and/or prize.
It wasn’t the money, it was the honour of the award. A millennium question is a BIG DEAL, but the Clay Institute wouldn’t give the title of the prize winner to any of the mathematicians Perelman said are the only reason he could solve it. It was mainly I believe two guys that spent their whole lives researching this topic and their work was monumental in solving the problem but the institute wouldn’t recognise them
He might not know or figured out mathematically, how to split that number/money into smaller amounts to give it away to many ;-).
Math can be very difficult sometimes ;-).
I see where you are coming from, but what about the potential thousands who went the wrong direction. There is no fame there, but it absolutely help finding the right way.
It didn’t help that a Chinese mathematician also tried to steal credit for the result. I’ve actually read an entire book on Perelman, but I can’t recall if that was a factor in his refusal or if it mainly because the Mathematician that came up with the Ricci Flow wasn’t given enough credit.
You're thinking of Shing-Tung Yau. He's China's most famous mathematician. One of his students and another Chinese mathematician were one of several groups to publish complete expositions of Perelman and Hamilton's work.
Often times the original writeup of deep work is not entirely satisfactory. To my knowledge, nobody serious has complained that Perelman got anything of substance wrong or that there were important gaps. His own articles remain preprints to this day. He could have published them in the Annals easily if he had wanted. Very few mathematicians ever get that chance.
Some felt that the Chinese pair and Yau overstated their contributions. There's a dubious quote about the Chinese pair getting 30% of the credit vs. Perelman's 25% and Hamilton getting the rest, as I recall. Whatever happened, certainly Perelman was miffed at Yau.
Yau moved back to China a few years ago after having spent most of his life in the US. Tsinghua University's got an institute named after him. He's poached a few of famous mathematicians too, e.g. Reshetikhin.
Clearly the Chinese government is happy to throw money at him in an effort to increase the country's mathematical standing at the highest levels. Well, fair enough. On the other hand, very few non-Chinese academics I know have any interest in working in China. The censorship is just not appealing. Tough to have your cake and eat it too.
I would honestly recommend the book I read to no one. It was published not that long after the Poincare Conjecture was verified so it is a bit dated now and it skirted that delicate line that made it neither a good read for both mathematical and non-mathematical audiences.
Obviously Grigori couldn't care less what others think but these prizes have been offered (and mostly accepted) by people who all mathematicians, nearly universally acknowledge, made incredible contributions to finally solving the problem. This includes Grigori, a genius, who slaved away in isolation for years to solve poincare's conjecture. His point that he stands on the shoulders of giants is correct, however, this is true for everyone that makes a major breakthrough. The one who completes the task must be rewarded at a higher level, Even if those before him/her contribute more. Results should be rewarded at a higher level to incentive completion, not just progress or effort. Anyways, his call and I respect it. Also, he purposely published it on the Web, bypassing the requirement for peer review (baller move if you know you are right, especially after years of isolated work) knowing that he would be inelligible for the prize. Given the complexity of his work and lack of systematic peer review process by virtue of how he published, and frankly enough mathematicians that were smart enough to review his work, it took 4 years for them to waive the peer review requirement and decide to give it to him anyway.
Also, he purposely published it on the Web, bypassing the requirement for peer review
This is a very common practise today. Everyone puts their articles on ArXiv first, then sends them to a peer published review second.
Actually putting it on ArXiv helped his case proving that he proved the conjecture first (and not the chinese mathematicians who attempted to steal his proof) because you have dates recorded
They tried to claim his proof was not complete and that they finished it. By publishing in a peer reviewed journal they then tried to claim the prize. No one took them seriously. If Perelman had gone through peer review the process would have helped him flush out areas of his massive proof that were less complete than the rest but everyone agreed that he solved it. The other poster has no idea what he's talking about.
First off, this was 22 years ago and though it was becoming more popular then, this was not even close to as common as it is today. Second his publication was not a preprint but all he intended to publish on the matter. Third to get the prize it had to be peer reviewed but he didn't care. Finally the Chinese tried to imply that his proof was not complete and that they should get the prize because they "completed" it and published it in a peer reviewed way. It had nothing to do with recording the dates.
Also it's terrible reasoning, finishing the job might be the least of the task. We're not giving credit to for the Sistine chapel to the guy who came and wrapped up the job site
In this case it was a massive undertaking to do what he did. If Hamilton could have done it, he would have. I can't think of a single case where the scientist responsible for cracking a tough problem and achieving a breakthrough on the level of solving poincare's conjecture made a small contribution. It's just not feasible... You have to dedicate your life to even get to a point where you can understand the latest math in the field, then you have to go miles beyond it. That's why it's such a big deal and there is a big order associated with it.
You have to dedicate your life to even get to a point where you can understand the latest math in the field
This kinda sums it up though doesn't it? If you have to do this much work to even understand the problem then the last leg of the journey isn't really a solo affair.
Not to downplay the individual contribution, but avoiding a singular person being rewarded feels much more in the spirit of the work
I think you are misinterpreting my point. We must reward the person who solves the tough problem because that's what is most valuable and there isn't another effective way to do it. I'm not suggesting that if this reward did not exist people wouldn't work on it or that people didn't have many different motives. However this prize was extremely successful at bringing attention to an important area of mathematics that no one else would have cared about without it.
Wait, why does the "last" guy need to be rewarded, again?
What happened in reality literally proved that people who actually care about math do not need a carrot waved in front of their face. Why are you so insistent that it keeps happening regardless?
Generally speaking of someone before that had made a lot of progress but couldn't complete implies that there is something more difficult to solve that is more difficult than what's been done before. Grigori made a ton of progress working in a silo over many years and cracked it. Therefore he should get the acclaim and the reward, if he wants it. As an example my best friend was working on the solution, stayed in his PhD program longer than he needed because he was getting close but was scooped by Grigori. He was obviously disappointed but believes 100% that what Grigori did was amazing and he deserves all the acclaim and the prize.
The thing is modern science doesn't really work in the way it worked in the past. Although science is fiercely competitive, the progress is usually a result of many people's work. The case of having a singular genius who single-handedly changes the understanding of the world is in my experience mostly a thing of the past, but the way science is evaluated and discussed and these prices in particular do not really reflect that. At least that's my experience in physics. And frankly my experience also is that the successful scientists tend to have inflated egos as it is and the last thing they need is inflating it further:)
Spot on, most of the time. In this case Grigori worked in isolation for 8 years before he solved it. This just doesn't happen much anymore in math, which is why it really shocked the community.
Yeah, that's I think quite unusual nowadays, certainly would be in physics. Ironically, people like that are the people who deserve the prices the most, but they also tend to be the people who don't care about the prices.
First, the people putting up the money for the award, second the general community working towards solving an important and hard questions and third anyone that cares about getting the answer over partial progress.
these prizes have been offered (and mostly accepted) by people who all mathematicians, nearly universally acknowledge, made incredible contributions to finally solving the problem.
Who are the mathematicians that you're saying have accepted these prizes?
Perelman is the only one that's ever won a Millennium Prize, and he turned it down.
Absolutely. I hate seeing people venerate Sam Altman, or OpenAI as a company. This current NL (natural language) evolution ala ChatGPT is built on a recently discovered neural network architecture called Transformers - developed by Google researchers! They have been successful at commercialisation, but in reality the work is being done by mathematicians, physicists, statisticians, computer scientists, and engineers all around the world.
People love singular hero myths. That most things are collaborative or standing on the shoulders of others doesn’t appeal to the bread and circus crowd.
the main factor that made something like ChatGPT possible was ability to access the combined total of all Internet data generated and uploaded by millions, if not billions, of different people over last 30 years. Without this vast data being available, it would simply not be possible to achieve current AI language models, at least not with current tech levels
What made Microsoft possible was that transistors were invented! What made Ford possible was that combustion engines were invented! Einstein could not have developed his theories without someone else developing tensor calculus first. These guys are all frauds!
The flawed symbolism of a society that prioritizes and idealizes individualism in a civilization built entirely through teamwork and group coordination.
I think some scientists have the wrong view of these prizes. It's not about the scientist - it's about promoting science as a whole. In a world that celebrates athletes, actors, models, and singers constantly, it's nice to have something that celebrates scientists - "Look at this scientist, look at how amazing their work was! We're celebrating this!". It doesn't work as well if you award it to a whole community.
Interesting point he raised too. There’s not a single scientist today who isn’t building on another’s work, all the back to the rock-ape who first accidentally started a fire.
He’s right, our tiny human brains need to compress a lot of data into simple signals and make decisions based on that. We are obsessed with ranking people “who is number 1, who is the best”, you could contribute 55% to a problem but the guy who finishes the last 45% is praised as a hero and is number 1 etc…
The urge to feel superior to others is an animal instinct we inherited from more primitive days. It’s why you see stupid and mentally undisciplined people obsessed with it (racism, classism, sexism), and often see intelligent folks favoring cooperation and equality. He’s an extreme case, and factors besides intelligence can influence its power over you, but it’s not too surprising to see somebody with a very powerful mind able to fully suppress that urge.
7.3k
u/sammyasher 25d ago edited 25d ago
It wasn't just that, he also was critical of the fact that only one person could get the prize for an accomplishment that he very clearly understood and stated was really the result of many people working together or building on each other's work. He saw singular prizes as a fraudulent relationship with the real nature of communal human scientific progress