Re: [math-fun] New Yorker article on the Poincare' crowd
Hilarie, aka The Purple Streak, writes: << The August 28 New Yorker has an article by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber about the mathematicians who have contributed to the proof of the Poincare' conjecture: Hamilton the playboy, Yau of the infinite ambition, and Perelman the Pure (somehow Thurston escapes scrutiny, appearing merely as a mathematician with a brilliant conjecture). Yau comes off badly in this article. ... ... I don't think it explains the mathematical ideas particularly well ...
I read the same article, and I found it well-written and fascinating; it's still available online, at < http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2 >. I'ts become quite a samizdat article among mathematicians; at least two people forwarded to me the article or link after I'd already read it (not counting Hilarie's mention of it). I thought the article did a pretty good job of explaining the mathematics, at least compared to any other article I've seen in a general publication, and especially a good job at describing the ambition and intrigue involved in claiming precedence on the "full" proof. Btw, I'm totally convinced the experts' consensus is that the Poincare conjecture is now fully settled in the affirmative; I'm not sure, however, whether the same is true of the Thurston geometrization conjecture. --Dan
Dan Asimov wrote:
Btw, I'm totally convinced the experts' consensus is that the Poincare conjecture is now fully settled in the affirmative; I'm not sure, however, whether the same is true of the Thurston geometrization conjecture.
The NYer article says that Perelman feels he got geometrization ("That is correct. Grisha"), and the title of Yau's paper implies the same. There are also quotes from mathematicians mourning the closure of "an entire field of mathematics". Perhaps "Manifold Destiny" should be subtitled "3-Space Just Got Boring". Is this true, though? I thought the NY Times article did a better job at explaining the concepts, but I don't know much more about it than what I need for hammering out sheet metal. Hilarie
On 9/3/06, Daniel Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote: ...
I read the same article, and I found it well-written and fascinating; it's still available online, at < http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2 >. I'ts become quite a samizdat article among mathematicians; at least two people forwarded to me the article or link after I'd already read it (not counting Hilarie's mention of it).
I thought the article did a pretty good job of explaining the mathematics, at least compared to any other article I've seen in a general publication, and especially a good job at describing the ambition and intrigue involved in claiming precedence on the "full" proof.
... Very interesting article; and surprising to find a piece of such length and depth on a mathematical topic in a non-scientific publication. This area has intrigued me from my student days, without my ever having become sufficiently motivated to make the effort required to understand properly what's going on. [I fondly recall one particular course on homotopy theory given by J. Frank Adams, half-way through which he was presented with a letter, signed by the entire undergraduate class, informing him simply that he had left them behind. He said he was going to have it framed. Or possibly its author, whose identity must be withheld to protect the guilty.] Can anybody out there suggest an introductory text suitable for a dilletante from computational geometry? WFL
participants (3)
-
Daniel Asimov -
Fred lunnon -
The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman