Talk:Grigori Perelman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Millennium Prize

He just got it. Should be in the article. I don't have the particulars, but this needs to be updated quickly. Big news! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephorourke (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, I see someone already put it in the article -- Yeah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephorourke (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Section "Withdrawal from mathematics"

The New Yorker is renowned for its fact checking of the articles it publishes. A direct quote there from a living person probably implies that a NY fact checker contacted the quoted person and either got a confirmation or wrote a long letter implicitly explaining how hard it will be to ever rebut the claim that they said it, if they don't do so before the article goes to press. Thus its quotes are pretty damn sure to be accurate, and constitute, in the absence of evidence of a conflict about their accuracy, verification that the quoted person is generally accepted as having uttered the quote.
On the other hand, NY's interruption of a quote with a quote-free implicit explanation of what the quote means is unlikely to occur where a different quote proves its accuracy, or to trigger a similar level of fact checking, or to cause that explanation to become generally accepted knowledge about what was meant. And inserting into a quote on WP

[a fuss about the mathematics community's lack of integrity]

(or rather, changing the punctuation of the quote), presents not just the quote but that assessment (in this case by the NY authors) of meaning as generally accepted knowledge (as opposed to an opinion about the meaning). In this case, the source given does not support that the assessment is generally accepted knowledge. I'm rewording accordingly.
--Jerzy•t 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Refused prizes

I'm sorry, but as a lay person who just randomly wandered into this page, I still don't have the foggiest notion WHY he refused the prizes. There seems to be a rambling and hard to understand explanation in his own words at the end of the article, but this still doesn't help me.

Why doesn't he want the cool medal thingy?

ManicParroT (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally know the person, but what he said, as quoted in the article, actually does make sense, provided you have engaged yourself in academics. Academics, in a way, is not much different from Wallstreet boardroom. Ego, glory seeking, etc etc. From what I understand, this guy has a real hatred toward the "system". By accepting the medal, one can say he is "accepting the system". Think about an actor who disagrees with how the Oscar works, and now the Oscars have come offering him an award, it wouldn't be inconsistent for him to decline it. Although, what's on the table is a lot of money! He really has real guts to turn it down if what I understand of him is correct. 222.152.23.148 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Things are not that simple. While some kind of attitude is playing a role here, there has been an episode that angered Perelman partly motivating him to turn down Fields medal. Shing-Tung Yau, a famous Chinese mathematician and Fields medalist, tried to credit part of the work about Perelman's proof to two compatriots. The work of these two mathematicians went published on a journal with Yau as an editor claiming that this paper completed the proof. Indeed, Perelman's proof is perfect and needed no improvement and all the community was well aware about this matter. But this was enough to enforce Perelman's views about community at large and make him choose.--Pra1998 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, as much as I remember, this particular issue was described in more detail in earlier versions of this article (I particularly remember the two Chinese blokes initially claiming their publication as "crowning achievment" of the matter, but then public outrage from the mathematician society forcing them to a more humble approach), but now I don't see it any more. This actually makes the references to this issue in the "Withdrawal from mathematics" part quite unclear, as there are only the Chinese mathematicians' names mentioned, without any explanation of their involvement in the story. Gruen (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Perelman has *not* yet refused the Millenium prize. See http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10181582 for details. Unfortunately, this article shows wrong year 2009 (while it's actually a fresh one of year 2010), so it cannot be unambiguously quoted. Its source is Russian news http://lifenews.ru/news/18018 Maxal (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That was what I was referring to as the "system". So much emphasis is put on publish or perish these days that journal editors oftentimes control people's livelihoods. One must not displease the chairmen of funding committes, no matter what they have done. After all who gets to decide whose work is so important that deserve a medal? It's only a handful of "elite" scientists/experts who get to have a say. (That's not to say Perelman doesn't deserve his medal) That is the "system" we have today. Gregor Mendel didn't get anything when he published his work. I mean, as said in the article, most people at times are just "conformists", so I wouldn't call what is already said in the article as "rambling" at all. 222.152.75.233 (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be explained that (as it has been said in various sources) Perelman lives in a very small, dirty apartmemnt on the verge of complete misery and accepting a large amount of money may have a strong psychological impact (Darkstar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.49.174 (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of psychology, it may be the case that he simply is disgusted with other humans and merely wants to be left alone. This attitude occasionally occurs in very intelligent people after they have had experiences in the world at large. Such persons do not suffer from loneliness because their own minds provide ample occupation and entertainment. This could be called the Person from Porlock Effect.Lestrade (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Has his refusal of the Millenium Prize been confirmed? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/grigori-perelman-reclusiv_n_511938.html Col. Sweeto (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

He refused the prize because it makes him look cool and exclusive. His motives are just that and it shows that he has no real intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.189.151 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

steklov director

Here is a statement from the Steklov director, in Russian so I don't know what it says. Maybe it is useful. I'd be interested if someone can summarize it.

http://trv-science.ru/2010/03/30/o-prichinax-uxoda-g-perelmana-iz-pomi/

66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Google translation will help to get the summary. In short, they did not fire Perelman - it was his decision to leave the Steklov institute (and mathematics in general). And they would be happy to hire him back if he ever change his mind. Maxal (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Literary influence

Is there any evidence that GP was deeply impressed by the children's book Struwwelpeter?Lestrade (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Dunno about impressed - unless he's tempting fate (and yes, one understands that some nail-clippers could do with getting sent to Kupchino). Anyway, I was given an original Victorian copy of HH's little horror show when I was 5 - it didn't stop me sucking my thumb (cf. the mad tailor with the big scissors) and as for hard sums, I'm afraid than SMP maths did for me entirely. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Sergei Rukshin, Perelmen's coach

The name of Sergei Rukshin is spelled differently in this article (Sergei Rushkin) from the spelling by Masha Gessen in her book Perfect Rigor. That is Rukshin vs. Rushkin.

I forgot to sign the note about the spelling of Sergei Rukshin's name which appears differently in this article (Rushkin) than in Mashs Gessen's book, Perfect Rigor. Jack Owen,501 North Causeway,New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 royal@ccvn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.239.12 (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

His name is indeed Sergei Rukshin (Сергей Рукшин). Fixed.--Sergei (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Media reaction to interview

Media reaction to the interview perfectly explains why Perelman avoided paparazzi: of all things spoken, they found valuable only his joke "I know now to control The Universe, so tell me why whould I need to chase a millon?", thus contributing to his image of 'idiot savant'. It was a joke, folks!!!! I am sure he had high moral reasons for his act, but... pearls before swine, guys; I am sure he understands that if he opens his soul, there will be plenty of ones in a hurry to spit into it. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perelman and media

I think it's quite inappropriate to leave the quote in this section in Russian. Google translate gives:

"I learned how to calculate the void, along with my colleagues we know the mechanisms for filling in the social and economic "voids. " Voids are everywhere. They can be calculated, and this gives great opportunities ... I know how to control the universe. And tell me - why should I run for a million?"

Perhaps a Russian speaker could provide a more accurate translation and update the section of the article.

Nippashish (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was lazy and short-memoried. Lom Konkreta (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

First, that interview is from KP. It's more of a tabloid than a serious news outlet. Even if the interview was in fact given, I would have some serious doubts about the integrity and accuracy of the representation.

As for the current translation, which is "I've learned how to calculate the voids; along with my colleagues we are getting to know the mechanisms for filling in the social and economic "voids". Voids are everywhere. They can be calculated, and this gives us great opportunities ... I know how to control the Universe. So tell me — why should I chase a million?"

It's an accurate one, yet I would personally use "exploring" or "discovering" instead of "getting to know". Or as a dictionary suggests, "cognize" may be the exact translation, yet the word seems to be rather uncommon. Senseiich (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Judaism is NOT a Nationality (Ethnicity), Jewish is NOT a religion

Case settled. If you don't understand that, than you don't know what you are talking about.

It is possible to be a Jewish Catholic or Jewish atheist just like it is possiblie to be an Italian follower for Judaism (I picked Italian randomly as an example). However, following Judaism would not athomatically make one Jewish, just like following Catholicism will not make one Italian.

Get this through your heads people! Stop confusing the words Jewish and Judaism. They are not the same. Just because most Jewish people follow Judaism does not mean it's the same. If an Italian became an atheist he wouldn't stop being Italian, now would he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.178.42 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

um actually, there is no distinction between the terms. it is the old question of "who is a jew?" either a follow of judaism OR a person of jewish descent could call themselves Jewish. the term is ambiguous. YOU don't know what you're talking about.--76.104.199.147 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But his mother isn't jewish, thus by Halakha law he isn't jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.59.83.45 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

what basis do you have for this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.194.154 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

You're Jewish if you're mom's Jewish. Period.

(This statement does not encapsulate questions of religious conversion.)

--Koala Paw (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

'Jewish' is an ethno-relgious identity and a man can call himself 'Jewish' if he's a follower of Judaism or if he has blood relations to people who have been followers of Judaism. If my mom's Jewish, by virtue of following the religion, am I Jewish? What if somebody in my lineage historically converted to Judaism and as a result I'm not blood-related to the semitic peoples that define 'Jewishness' for some people?

It's strictly a matter of how a person identifies. If he doesn't call himself 'Jewish', he's not Jewish. Period. 76.180.19.184 (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Then provide a source where would be stated that his mother is jewish. And it's not a matter how person identifies, yet you can add that according to his words he considers himself jewish, but if in fact his mother isn't jewish, then he's not a jew, but of jewish descent (as well as russian). 95.59.81.94 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence provided that his mother is jewish. 174.123.156.216 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is more than reliable evidence. "He has suffered anti-Semitism (he is Jewish)... Grigory is pure Jewish and I never minded that but my bosses did."--Eversman (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to chip into this, but note that the Daily Telegraph is not actually making a statement about his mother's religion (or origins); it is simply reporting that one individual believes that Perelman is "pure Jewish", whatever that means.

It seems to me that this entire angle is being overdone. "Jewish" certainly does not belong in the lead paragraph - that's wikipedia policy. As for his background: if he really had a background very different from that of his neighbours, and he were in a profession where the way that might hypothetically affect him in ways that could be relevant to his work (e.g. Durkheim, sociology) then this would be a somewhat interesting fact; as it is, I really think we are prying too much into the life of a living person, for the sake of an output that is not encyclopaedic (ill-defined terms, doubtful relevance). Feketekave (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not some individual, it is Sergey Rukshin, the director of the elite maths school where Perlman studied. I think Mr. Rukshin should know if one of his students is pure Jewish or not. Pure Jewish? Either his both parents are Jewish or he considers himself a Jew, it is as simple as that. In the article it is also written this;

Obviously Mr. Rukshin is neither (a) the race police, (b) an authority on what Perelman considers himself to be nowadays (nor does he claim to be). Feketekave (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Soviet distrust of Jews was strong at the time and the boy prodigy had to swim against a powerful tide of anti-Semitism. "It was a horrible time for Jewish people," said Mr Rukshin.

"Grigory is pure Jewish and I never minded that but my bosses did. When they found out I had invited him to study at our maths centre they reprimanded me for 'incorrect ethnic politics'."

Top academics would express indignation when seeing his overtly Jewish surname in competition lists.

So, Perlman is Jewish, and now it is up to you to face that fact or provide you own reliable reference that claims otherwise.--Eversman (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. If you think I personally care about Perelman's religion (or what have you) you are missing my point. I do not doubt, by the way, that Perelman's career may have been in danger of being harmed due to his Jewish surname; this is an important, interesting and sourced fact, though (a) it belongs further down the article, (b) it is really a fact about those "top academics", not about Perelman. Feketekave (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a sourced fact that he is Jewish and as such it doesn't belong further down the article. Deal with it, or provide you own reliable reference that claims otherwise.--Eversman (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually also a sourced info, that when he went to a math camp as a child, his mother asked the supervisor to make sure that he changes his underwear every day. 87.229.2.180 (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The following source supports that Grigory Perelman is Jewish:

"In fact Mr Perelman's extraordinary life has been one of adversity and extremes. He has suffered anti-Semitism (he is Jewish) as well as miscomprehension and betrayal from less talented colleagues."

If no source comes to light that is in contradiction to the above then I think our article should state directly that Perelman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it" is the wrong attitude for this site. --68.161.163.212 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perelman is an atheist. And his parents too (father WAS until leaving for Israel, dunno exactly if he becomes judaist there). His mother is of jewish origin, but her ancestors were christians (russian orthodox) since 19 century. About his father's ancestors don't know anything. No prooflinks. Just believe it. Sorry for bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.137.236 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Where did you get that "/ˈpɛrɪlmən/ PERR-il-mən"? In Russian it has stress on the last syllable, not the first. Moreover, the last syllable is pronounced with /a/. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Exact pronunciation is Russian pronunciation: [grʲi'gorʲij 'jakəvlʲivʲit͡ɕ pʲirʲilʲ'man]. 82.209.84.76 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the stress (I stress the first syllable, still I heard the stress on the last syllable as well; possibly it's more correct), but it may be worth mentioning that in Leningrad the unstressed 'e' is still pronounced as 'e' in many to most cases; I live in Leningrad, by the way. When I stress the last syllable of this word, the pronunciation is either /Perel'man/ or /Peril'man/ (pre-stress vowels have special status), but never /Piril'man/, the latter would sound laughable to me. - 89.110.10.48 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The person who recorded this (audio used on the page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Ru_Perelman.ogg) pronounces it in the way you said was laughable... suggesting it is certainly not universal to pronounce it the Petersburg way, or people who don't "know" how to say it will still say it in the way you'd expect for an unstressed syllable. However, seeing as it seems to be considered valid to just pronounce each vowel "as it looks" for example to stress how the word is spelled, I don't think a consensus can be reached on how it's "supposed" to be pronounced. Weird exceptions (half-embracing the original pronunciation) exist all the time and they don't automatically become "resolved" by some authority. However you can't take unusual pronunciations of vowels to imply there's a stress on that syllable, it wouldn't be pronounced as a long vowel after all. I'm not a native speaker of Russian, NB. Suggest changing it to pe-ril-MUN or pi-ril-MUN to at least get the last vowel right. --88.115.46.239 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)