What is TL;DR of Hamilton's letter about?

>wah wah wah muh raycism
Deal with it, chink apologist.

>say something which is statistically prominent
>"enjoy you ban"

lmao

You have to be adult to post here.

>statistically prominent
[citation needed]

literally google "chinese test cheating" and wipe your own ass you fucking faggot

This is not just racism. Given your response, you clearly did not read the letter that OP posted.

This isn't about race either. If you read the NY article posted in this thread, it clearly states that Perelman had a chinese friend who drove with him weekly to IAS.

How old are you?

I can tell that you aren't a scientist. A scientist would recognize his own bias. A better google search will be "cheating statistics by race" or something like that.

Anyways, please take off topic discussion somewhere else. I think is the perfect place for you.

old enough to have raped you mom and have such a faggot pop out 9 months later.

fuck off back to re*dit you idiot

it behooves you to know a little about white scientists if race is so important to you :^)

Ah. I see this was bait the entire time.
I congratulate you, sir, but trolls are also against the rules.

Fuck off you racist piece of shit.
Cheating is part of their tradition.
liveleak.com/view?i=5a9_1461148230&comments=1

you want a band-aid?

Apparently he moved to Sweden:

rbc.ru/spb_sz/24/07/2014/5592ace69a794719538d3290
aif.ru/dontknows/actual/1312240
kp.ru/daily/26260.3/3138310/

Bump

>chinks cheating and stealing

Shocking, truly shocking I tell you

bump. want more info on Perelman working at a nanotech firm in Sweden.

It's a cultural thing. They are brought up in a cut throat environment that fosters these kind of tendencies.

My own ethnicity behaves in the same way.

Bunch of back stabbers and traitors. Dishonesty is rampant and you are brought up, to be sceptical of everyone and trust no one.

It's just a cancerous culture.

>Perelman working at a nanotech firm in Sweden.

Holy shit it's true. Good for him. I hope he finds peace and a new purpose in life.

it seems like they are trying to discredit Perelman in that letter

Why and how would he be working at a nanotech firm, nano physics is VERY far removed from what he did, plus would he even find it enjoyable given his convictions? If it's for money then he could easily go back into academia or possibly just ask for the money from the millennium prize, from interviews it seems he still loves math even though it's a touchy subject, hell some of his friends said he still works on math but just doesn't publish any of it.

so Yau was too stupid to follow Givental's proof and decided to take credit for a simpler one? what the fuck is this nonsense? Givental made the first proof. period. it's not his fault if people around him are retarded.

I agree that if you simply fill in the gaps for a proof you shouldn't be given much credit (you should still have enough credit to be allowed to give talks about it, as your arguments will be easier to understand and therefore more suitable for a conference). But I think it is every mathematician's responsibility to write complete proofs on their own.

I mean, it is pretty dumb if you ask me. If you already know all the details of the proof, why not write them all down? Sure, it will take longer but it also means that your proof will go through peer review faster. You are just shooting yourself in the foot here.

Plus it gives into suspicions that your proof is fake, as it wouldn't be the first time a mathematician willingly left some details out, calling them trivial, because they actually didn't know how to justify it and just wanted to get on with the proof. I mean, we all went through undergrad right? We all did this at some point. Don't lie to me.

It's possible that the gaps were unintentional, anyone who had written a math paper can tell you that the first draft will usually have a few minor holes that you didn't see, considering the fact that he was doing all of this alone it's perfectly reasonable that he just missed the gap and no one had the chance to point it out to him.

>It's possible that the gaps were unintentional

True but if in this instance the gaps were so big that Yau and his cronies were able to write down an entire new paper just by filling in the gaps then that sounds to me like the gaps were the size of the grand canyon.

there were no gaps he just left out intermediate steps because he wasn't writing for brainlets.

It's because of the history of attempted solutions to the conjecture, a lot of times the key error that killed the proof was so subtle that even experts might have overlooked them, so filling in the details wouldn't always be easy, it's an important job. As for Yau, even if the proof was air tight they still would have tried to take credit, as stated in they pretty blatantly tried taking credit for it, hell the only reason Hamilton supported them is cause he and Yau were friends and he was pissed off that Perelman solved the problem despite the fact that Perelman refused the prize on the grounds that he believed Hamilton deserved half the credit (which imo is bs since as Tao has pointed out many of the results in Perelman's three papers were amazing independent of thurston's conjecture)

Good post

only liberals have faith in ''''''''çopyrights'''''''and ''ównership of ideas''''

Thanks user, I do recommend everyone actually look into expositions of his proof, it isn't hyperbole to say it's some of the best math in decades second only to wiles.

No problem, what background is required to understand the gist of his proof? Any recommended pre-req readings?

Like these HQ posts. Can you tell me where I can find more information about the Perelman controversy. It seems like Hamilton is a real fuckboy.

Not him, but based on the required reading and the description of a course on Ricci flows leading up to sketching the proof of Poincare hypothesis in Independent university of Moscow ( ium.mccme.ru/s10/ricci.html ) prereqs are
>basics of topology (cohomologies, covering space, fundamental group) and diff geometry (connectivity, curvature, geodesics)
The recommended literature for the course is:
Milnor's "Morse Theory", Gromov's "Sign and geometric meaning of curvature" and also:
"Einstein Manifolds" by Besse, and
>Topping P. Lectures on the Ricci Flow (2006, 133 pp.)
>Gallot S., Hulin D., Lafontaine J. Riemannian geometry
>Chow B., Lu P., Ni L. Hamilton's Ricci Flow [Volume 1,web draft ed.] (2005, 374 pp.)
Also if you follow the above link at the bottom you'll find a bunch of links to arxiv.org to the relevant papers.

Tao's notes
terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/whatsnew.pdf
only assume a basic understanding of smooth manifolds, some algebraic topology, and some riemannian geometry (if you need references for any of these subjects I'm happy to provide them), same with the two volumes
claymath.org/library/monographs/cmim03c.pdf
claymath.org/library/monographs/cmim05ca.pdf
Tao also has another exposition based on his course though from a pde perspective
arxiv.org/pdf/math/0610903.pdf

Here are some articles that show some of the shady shit surrounding the ordeal.

chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-06/05/content_608156.htm
chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-06/21/content_621933.htm

Notice the distinct lack of mention of Perelman and Hamilton also not talking about Perelman and instead giving credit to Yau. To be fair though it is not as though Yau and Hamilton did not contribute at all to the ricci flow program, they did in fact invent this method of attack to solve the thurston (and thus poincare) conjecture, though Perelman did much of the heavy lifting by proving that this scheme works and providing powerful new tools in the fields of nonlinear pde's and differential geometry.
doctoryau.com/hamiltonletter.pdf

A controversial (cause it called Yau and Hamilton out), though interesting article that the letter refers to is this one (if you cannot view the article I have copied it to word and will post it in chunks)
newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny
Very interesting to note the things Hamilton and Yau say about the proof and Perelman, it makes the letter Hamilton sent seem a bit more disingenuous.

These are also good links, thank you for them

Skipped over your post, I included some links in my response .

Thanks, your responses are excellent. I am a bit newer to mathematics, I am comfortable with the level of mathematics found in Rosen's Discrete Mathematics book-- I am ready to "graduate" from that textbook into "higher level mathematics".

What recommendations do you have for someone like me? I know I have some time to reach understanding the gist/sketch of Perelman's proof, but I am willing to put in the work (I intend to obtain a PhD and study pure math intensely on my own).

My mind is open to your recommendations. Saved your post for later reading.

Thanks. Your responses are of excellent quality. I'm closer to a beginner in mathematics (think: ready to move on from "baby's first intro to proof class, studied from rosen).

With my level, what recommendations do you have to obtain the pre-reqs to understand the pre-reqs of Perelman's proof?

I want to obtain a PhD, so I am willing to put in the proper time to obtain this level of understanding. It really motivates me to learn the fundamentals very well.

Honestly the way Perelman handled the controversy makes everybody else involved look like selfish, stupid cunts in comparison. Well done ethical thinking man.

The quickest path would first to get yourself acquainted with proofs, then to move on to basic analysis (Rudin, Tao, Pugh, Kolmogorov) and linear algebra (Kunze/Hoffman, Lang), these can be read simultaneously if you prefer. After having those two down you can start learning some geometry and topology, books like Munkres, Janich, Bendon all give good introductions to general and algebraic topology. As for smooth manifolds and Riemannian/Differential geometry the books I linked have reviews though it'll probably be useful to be familiar with the subject going in so some books you can use are Lee "smooth manifolds", Fomenko has a standalone text and a three volume set covering modern geometry from the ground up, Novikov "modern geometry", Lee "manifolds and differential geometry", toponogov "differential geometry", kuhnel "differential geometry", gallot "Riemannian geometry", de Carmo "Riemannian geometry", Jost "Riemannian Geometry", and these notes online are also great
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.384.4746&rep=rep1&type=pdf
www3.nd.edu/~lnicolae/Lectures.pdf
This list is no exhaustive it's just books I've looked at that I've liked, they all cover the material you'll need more or less it's just a matter of which book suits your taste and skill level. If you want some PDE theory under your belt Evans is a great book, though maybe not as a first introduction, Farlow is pde book based on techniques so it might be a better start. The actual measure theory in any of the texts is minimal, an easy book to get into measure theory is Kolmogorov or Adams/Guilkemin, with Simon's first book in his analysis series covering more than any measure theory you'll need. Hope this helps.
Perelman really didn't deserve the treatment he got.

>Chinese inventions

the mods dont reinforce the rules. How long have you been on Veeky Forums

Excellent, thank you.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html
Yeah that poster is biased every race does this :^)

Give me hard statistics and then I'll be convinced.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
maybe it's you who is suffering from bias

Pic related.

I'm not the one making the claim, so no.

That map clearly shows a lot of countries that are more corrupt than China.

>others do it too so it's okay

that's basically what the parents in this article were saying
>According to the protesters, cheating is endemic in China, so being forced to sit the exams without help put their children at a disadvantage.

It's no surprise then that he would use the same argument.

This actually explains why so many international students have through the roof gre subject test scores despite stronger students in the u.s. not doing as well.

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm saying that corruption can't be used to measure cheating because literally half the map is more corrupt than China.

user was claiming that China was the epitome of cheating, which your map contradicts if cheating was related to corruption.

No. I am not saying that cheating is okay. Cheating is wrong. But what said before: "chinks are genetically predisposed to cheat" is a little short sighted, don't you think?

Chinese student probably do cheat more often than other students, on average, but that's probably due to the toxic culture rather than genetics.

So much this. I've witnessed it first hand. Zero morals.

Bump for quality thread

>perceived level
into the trash it goes

Bump, though hoping the thread goes back to being focused on Perelman and not the Chinese

It's even worse than you say. I've come to suspect that they don't even want the answers to come to light due to the truths they would reveal.

Daily bump for HQ thread

Where does culture come from?
It's the genes stupid.

I have no idea how stupid you have to be to make that kind of statement.

>Where do pencils come from?
>It's the wood stupid

It's you who's the moron, you brainwashed nincompoop. Humans invent cultural practices. Culture doesn't spontaneously appear among humans who then just so happen to start following the norms of that culture. Every people creates a culture according to their predispositions.

>chimps don't act like chimps because of genes, it's just chimp culture
>bats don't act like bats because of genes, it's just bat culture

This is how retarded the anti-hereditarian position is.
Keep creationism in your churches you uneducated imbeciles.
Fucking SJWs and their retarded religion.

>what are environmental factors
>what is trade
>what is politics

It is clear you didn't actually read what I posted. I said the Chinese culture was based around testing. This testing was what pushed them to cheat. Culture is founded by genes, and it is then shaped and molded over thousands of years by the clashing of cultures. You are obviously too stupid to have understood my analogy. Oh well, I don't know what I expected from an underage.

>what are environmental factors
Not the holy grail against hereditarianism you think it is.
>what is trade
Caused by genes. Other species don't trade. Not all human populations are equally inclined to trade either.
>what is politics
Caused by genes also.

Do you know how to read?
My post heavily implied that I was referring to the trade between cultures and the political conflicts between cultures.

I guess by your logic I can say that:
>Americans are genetically predisposed to be fat and overweight
>British people are genetically predisposed to drink heavily
>Americans are genetically predisposed to shoot up their school

So...does anyone wanna talk about geometry and nonlinear pde's, like the work perelman did but not just limited to his work, though we could also talk about his work.

No, we have to argue about chinks and race baiting topics. /pol/ ruined another thread.

This is why we can't have nice things

>dude asks to talk about math
>you literally cry to him about politics while at the same time complaining about politics in the board
kill yourself

yeah, but if the grey goo you eats because some chinese instead of Perelman did the calculations
for the nanobots, you might change your opinion

Well, it was a fun thread while it was on topic.

Say a professor without tenure works on an open problem while working on smaller problems to get tenure. Should the professor openly admit he's working on an open problem?

Say wiles is a young buck in a university at no where state U. How patient would they be with a then unproven wiles while he works on the seemingly impossible conjecture he's fiddling with?

sure why not, as long as you're making progress on the other stuff, people will just think "oh that guy's doing okay job with his problems, and I think he's also trying something with a hard problem for some reason"

Are you implying environment is minor factor in human behaviour? Let me know when you find those research-stealing and child-beating genes famalamalam.

What someone might also do is develop parts of the proof that are seemingly separate from the conjecture but interesting/useful in their own right and publish them prior, that way they at least show that they are working. Unsolved problems are typically things people try after they have established a strong record and have tenure, mostly since it means they can spend a lot of time on it, and so that people in the field will take them seriously when they announce the proof (for very big open problems sometimes mathematicians just straight up ignore the proof since it's most likely wrong, just read it once and never again).

The class that started a year after the pharmacist I work with had virtually nobody who could speak English. They mostly spoke Chinese and were "local" (as in they had taken their undergraduate per-requisites at this Canadian university). How do you not speak a lick of English at an English speaking university and get good enough grades to get into pharmacy school?

Bump

Bump

Bump

HQ thread. Bump

Reports are he works in Sweden

So did he steal the work from the chinese guy or not?

you guys ever check this video out

youtube.com/watch?v=SnliuBIB2V0

No, he didn't steal work from some Chinese guy, I explained everything here
Someone also posted some excerpts from an article I linked here

so why did Perelman give up math

why not also try and solve P vs. NP or the Riemann Hypothesis?

he had ethical troubles with math.
now he's doing nanotech in sweden

>P vs. NP or the Riemann Hypothesis
Both WAY outside of his field of expertise
It's been rumored that he is doing nanotech work in Sweden, no one actually knows, plus him working in nanotech really doesn't make much sense.

So what was more significant to mathematics

Wiles proof of Fermat's last theorem or Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture?

Basically new techniques to work with in pure math.

Since he apparently had a job now he no longer needs the money

Weren't he making a living of cheating in some old polish card game similar to poker?