Comments on: Brilliant & Reclusive Russian Mathematician Doesn’t Need Your Prize Money

By: DR. EDWARD SIEGEL

DR. EDWARD SIEGEL — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:09:48 +0000

Physics’ Simple 4-Step “Plane”-Geometry Dimension-Theory Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT) via Noether’s-Theorem(NT)/Fermat’s-Principle (FP) Translational/Momentum(?)/Scale(??)-Invariance Symmetry-Breaking/ Non-Conservation VIA Classic Greek Ancient Aristotle “Square-of-Opposition” Deduction
[DONE IN 15 MINUTES AT C.C.N.Y./C.U.N.Y. ON DIFERENTIAL-GEOMETRY FINAL IN 1964: 1964(Siegel) < << 1994(Wiles); 1994 - 1964 = 30 YEARS = 3 DECADES!!!]
OUTLINE

Wiles’ ostensibly pure-mathematics Fermat’s last theorem (FLT) contorted-proof precludes simplicity! Yet simplifying “physics”(?) subtly lurks therein(“intrinsic-‘blending’”!)!!!
FLT: prove no (any-n>2, any-integer-x,y,z) solutions can exist (vs. Pythagorean-Theorem (PT) solutions at n = 2 for any-x,y,z, and/or FLT at n > 2 and any-non-integer-x,y,z). PT: for (n = 2, any-x,y,z) right-triangle prototype.
Short succinct physicists’ proof:
 (1.) 2 assumptions:
 (a) triangle indivisible “atoms” are (3)-edges (intersecting in (3)-vertices);
 (b) all (3)-edges must be maximally used-up between (3)-vertices (no edge-to-vertex: undershoot “gaps”/deficits nor overshoot/dangling segments waving-“flags” allowed!).
 (2.) Triangle’s (3)-vertices determine a plane! PT exponent (n =D = 2) is its planar-dimensionality D!:
PT is really: !
 (3.) FLT proof:
 Either:
 (i) try but fail to understand Wiles-Ribet-…proof for all eternity, or
 (ii) by above dimensionality-insight Dimension-theory
[Karl Menger, "Dimensiontheorie, Teubner(1929)] show FLT INequality by definition can have no possible solutions for any-(n D > 2) and any-integer-x,y,z: .
 Via (4.) CCNY physicists’ end-run insight, (ii) is Absolutely Trivial!!!
 (5.) Heuristically: PT right-triangle (thumb, forefinger, other-hand forefinger) embedded in (nD=2)-plane, two assumptions (a),(b) dictate its higher-dimensionality FLT extension/un-projection must break plane-triangle only at a vertex (rotate other-hand’s forefinger upward to some angle for some(n=D>2)). For this “’sundial’ on PT-plane” all-possible back-projections (n =D > 2 to n =D = 2) (except only one trivial exact back-projection-reversing measure-zero set), form non-triangles broken at a would-be vertex, either “gap” or “flag”, both forbidden!
 (6.) FLT crucial x,y,z = all-integers-only condition is “physics” subtlety: for any non-integer-x,y,z, “gap”/“flag”, repair by incrementally/fractionally telescoping/extending edge-length is translational-(or scale?)-invariance symmetry-restoring, hence solutions exist (non-FLT “=”).
 Versus for any-x,y,z  Z “gaps”/”flags” cannot be so healed; FLT (“”) INequality!
No solutions can possibly exist! QED FIN. I.e. Importantly/more directly: Noether’s-theorem (NT):
(non-Z) translational-(or scale?)-invariance continuous-symmetry-restoring conservation-law/convergence
versus
(Z) translational-invariance continuous-symmetry-breaking non-conservation-law/divergence
directly proves FLT since two INequalities IDENTICAL: (“”)_(NT) = (“”)_(FLT)!
Earliest(?) NT was Fermat’s (FP): (“”)_(FP)  (“”)_(NT) = (“”)_(FLT)!!! QED FIN.
In then-unified “Natural Philosophy” (physics = mathematics), why should Fermat repeat his very own “physics” FP to prove his own “mathematics” FLT when their identical “ ”’s make them an identity? Hence no “proof” needed in his margin!
What possibly can momentum-energy 4-vector , the formal Noether-4-current Dichotomy: conservation versus non-conservation, have to do with ostensibly “pure”-“mathematics” proof of Fermat’s last-theorem via Fermat’s-principle of least-action? Simply, for momentum 3-vector (alone) conservation, the 3-vectors must form a closed-triangle, versus for momentum non-conservation, the would-be momentum-conservation triangle is broken open into a non-triangle with gaps and/or flags. Then its 3-divergence obeys Dichotomy: zero versus non-zero, i. e. versus . But as well, its energy fourth-component time-derivative obeys Dichotomy: zero versus non-zero, i. e. (i. e. energy can and does not “leak out” of “system” as time evolves), versus (i. e. energy can and does “leak out” of “system” as time evolves). Taken all together the Noether’s-theorem Dichotomy is: energy-momentum 4-vector conservation versus non-conservation, i. e. versus .
Superset Shimura-Taniyam-Weil once-conjecture now theorem-with-proof may so simplify via “physics” so succinctly, if ab initio functionally-illiterate in mathematics non-conocce mere physicists could only understand even its statement!
Edward Siegel
“Physical-Mathematicist”/”Mathsicist”
fuzzyics@san.rr.com; fuzzyics@cox.net
“FUZZYICS”=”Categoryics” (“Son of ‘TRIZ’”)
@ Pacific Beach Institute for the Utter-Simplicity of (So-MIS-Called) “Complexity” Optimality(PBISCO) and @ La Jolla Institute for the Utter-Simplicity of (So-MIS-Called) “Complexity” Optimality (LAJISCO)
1111 Hornblende, San Diego,CA. 92109; 1633 Diamond Street/#38, San Diego, CA. 92109-3165 ; 6655 La Jolla Blvd., La Jolla, CA.92037; 3250 South Town Center Dr./#3094, Summerlin, Las Vegas, NV. 89135

By: DR. EDWARD SIEGEL

DR. EDWARD SIEGEL — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:40:52 +0000

BRAVO GRIGORY PERELMAN!!!
IRONICALLY IS A BOOK “A CRITICAL REVIEW OF HOW PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY GETS DONE” EDITED BY ANOTHER (CARLOS CASTRO) PERELMAN, AND MARTIN LOPEZ CORREDOIRA(UNIVERSAL PUBLISHERS; BOCA RATON (2008) HIGHLIGHTING JUST SUCH RAMPANT BRIAN MARTIN/JOHN BRADSHAW/EDWARD SIEGEL/… IDENTIFIED SOCIOLOGICAL-DYSFUNCTIONALITY OF THE “SEANCES”(INSIDERS WHO CIRCLE THE WAGONS AND HOLD HANDS TO KEEP OUTSIDERS OUT)/WOULD BE “SCIENCES”. THE SYLVIA NASAR-DAVID GRUBER NEW YORKER ARTICLE ON PERELMAN HIGHLIGHTS THIS AND THE CARLSON-YAU AND HIS GANG PERFIDITY.
I MYSELF, A THEORETICAL-PHYSICIST OUTSIDER TO “PURE”-MATHEMATICS, HAVE RUN INTO THIS NONSENSE, HAVING HAD “SPIKED” ALL ABSTRACTS SUBMITTED TO THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY-MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA JOINT MEETINGS TWICE, BOTH IN 2006 AND 2010, IN WHICH I, USING ARISTOTLE’S LONG-FORGOTTEN “SQUARE-OF-OPPOSITION” DEDUCTION, PROVED THREE OTHER MILLENIUM-PROBLEMS:
BIRCH AND SWINNERTON-DYER CONJECTURE,
P =/= NP(ABSOLUTELY TRIVIAL SPECIAL CASE OF NEXT),
AND FERMAT’S LAST-THEOREM(DONE BY WILES IN SOME 18 YEARS IN 1994, BUT BY SIEGEL IN 15 MINUTES TO GRADUATE FROM C.C.N.Y. 1964, SOME 30 YEARS EARLIER).
AND SOON THE RIEMANN-HYPOTHESIS MILLENNIUM-PROBLEM,
ACTUALLY RIEMANN-(CARL LUDWIG; A THIRD COUSIN)SIEGEL HYPOTHESIS SEEMS AMENABLE TO SOME COMBINED SOLID-STATE/CONDENSED-MATTER AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS CONSIDERATIONS!!!

DR. EDWARD SIEGEL
“PHYSICAL-MATHEMATICIST”/”MATHSICIST”
FUZZYICS=CATEGORYICS (“SON OF ‘TRIZ’”)
FUZZYICS@SAN.RR.COM
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA, USA

By: George

George — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:11:23 +0000

He really wanted to prove something, hope he will reveal it. About charity may be, it is everyone’s responsibility and I agree with Elisa Strickland.

By: Nemesis

Nemesis — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:01:37 +0000

$1M is a drop in the bucket compared to the endorsement deal he signed with Gillette.

By: Eliza Strickland

Eliza Strickland — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:29:01 +0000

@ Jana and others:

The Clay Mathematics Institute, which awards the Millennium Prizes, will do something charitable with the $1 million that Perelman declined. The Institute says it use the prize money to benefit mathematics, and will announce the details of its plan this fall.

– Eliza, DISCOVER online news editor

By: roy

roy — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:09:13 +0000

マッコリ is right.. though i can’t understand him/her ( i don’t even know the gender), i think what his/her saying has a sense..

By: マッコリ

マッコリ — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 06:54:15 +0000

マッコリとは、韓国の大衆向け醸造酒の一つ。日本のどぶろくに相当する。仮名表記では、
マッカリ、マッコルリとも書くマッコリには強い甘味がある。これは麹により糖化された米の甘味である。
微かな酸味と炭酸発泡の味がする。醗酵の進み過ぎたマッコリは酸味と炭酸が強烈になる。アルコール度数は6～8％（ビール程度）である。

By: Amos

Amos — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:48:42 +0000

he’s clearly a simple person in many ways, to him it’s just an unneeded complication, something he has no desire for. if he doesn’t communicate with the outside world and is producing amazing works, he must be quite happy where he is, doing what he’s doing. he doesn’t care what others think or about pleasing them, he’s just being a good neighbor to give them something valuable that he did for fun. i have some friends like this, and understand this personality well.

By: Dwight

Dwight — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:02:20 +0000

We will probably never know the real reason why Professor Perelman would not accept the award money. Russia is different but not in the way we read and hear about; example, in Russia you are not expected to tip for services. I have visited Russia, the oridinary Russian people are good people and do indeed seem honorable, humble and friendly. Several times in line I could not determine what bills to give a cashier and to avoid delaying people I just handed them the money. Later I figured out what I paid and was never over charged. From the little bit I know of Russian people I like them and admire themvery much, we in the US could learn a lot from the Russian people. Congratulations to Professor Perelman, a virtual unknown who is now quietly a giant.

By: rabidmob

rabidmob — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:48:49 +0000

@Sparkicus if he were to pay “mafiya vigs,” he’d be putting bullets in their guns, he’d be supporting them. How then could he claim integrity or moral correctness?

By the way, the word is spelled mafia…

By: Zachary

Zachary — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:38:49 +0000

Yes, yes you do when the wealthy actually offer substantial money you take it and give it to those less fortunate. His idealism is pathetic and short-sighted.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:27:08 +0000

By some small miracle the world is changed. Whether Perelman recieves the honor by accepting monetary gain for himself or others is irrelevant.The result is the answer, it cannot be further elaborated on. The gift of a solution is exactly that, a gift. You don’t pay someone for giving you a gift do you?

By: rojas

rojas — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:57:32 +0000

he is a one in a million mathematician, and one in a million human being

By: Sparkicus

Sparkicus — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:23:06 +0000

Great guy and article. If I were professor Perelman, I’d have asked for the million in cash, in $1 denominations, so I could exercise my “purity” & “integrity” COUNTING IT! —But seriously, I would have accepted it, payed any taxes and mafiya vigs, and given the rest to a worthy cause, as others have suggested. His “integrity” would then have been multiplied. Then again, considering his reclusion and the depth of the math problem he’s been working on all this time, he might not know of any worthy causes!

By: Bán Béla Hungary

Bán Béla Hungary — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:59:38 +0000

Many peoples’ , families’ life are ruined by organized criminal groups by psychological warfare as it is described on many-many American websites .
They would need a part of this sum .
Yours truly Bán Béla
I greet the people of the USA and Russia .

By: Julius Mazzarella

Julius Mazzarella — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:34:02 +0000

One can easily recall N. Tesla did a similar thing and gave up a million dollars( back in the time of Tesla that was really a lot of cash!) so Westinghouse could stay in business long enough to realize the completion of demonstrating that AC power could be used to make people’s live a little easier. Edison’s DC current distribution was a failure. With out Tesla today we would not see such vast power grids. Tesla commeted “money does not have such value placed on it by people…if I can make other’s lives a little easier it is worth it to me not to have the money” . Similar to Tesla I believe Perelman is a true gem in the field of mathematics and physics.

By: Steven A. Sylwester

Steven A. Sylwester — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:09:12 +0000

Regarding people like Grigori Perelman, please read:
http://nasa-academy-of-the-physical-sciences.blogspot.com/

Also, please read the discussion thread at:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/77811/Proposal_NASA_Academy_of_the_P.html

I have proposed a nationwide public school for high school students who are exceptionally gifted in mathematics and the physical sciences. The curriculum is standard, straightforward, and universal with very few choice options. I call my proposed school “NASA Academy of the Physical Sciences.”

Steven A. Sylwester

By: TMK

TMK — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:06:20 +0000

I’m a science blogger visiting St. Petersburg right now and I REALLY want to see if I can meet him. He’s a dreamboat of idealalism.

I think he has done incredible things for science by:

a) Putting MATH on the front page
b) Reminding the world that science isn’t about awards

I think it is great for science. But, unfortunately, for someone that wants to be a recluse – he’s way more famous than he when he was only famous in the math world.

By: Elissa

Elissa — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:42:57 +0000

Bob, your comment just doesn’t seem to make much sense. How is his rejecting the prize helpful in combating plagiarism, unless *he* actually plagiarized in order to win and that’s the point he’s trying to make? It would then be an ethical imperative to decline the prize and the money. But if in fact he did the work and deserves the credit, or at least deserves a share of the credit together with others, how does it help to reject it? Why not accept the prize on the condition that it be shared with Hamilton?

Oh, right — he’s an eccentric genius. It must make sense to him.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:20:45 +0000

How Clever. Not a word about the controversy surrounding the proof of the Poincare conjecture or how a competing research group tried to claim

credit by minimizing Perelman’s proof and contributions and tried to pass off his ideas as their own.

Why did Perelman reject the award? Oh, he is just a recluse.

How convenient.

Grigory is not just stopping with his contribution to mathematics. By rejecting this “award,” he is making a tremendous contribution to ethics in

mathematics, science and other research oriented disciplines. He *is* doing something about it by bringing the cheating, stealing and plagiarism

of other people’s original ideas into the glare of public light. The best way for progress is by shaming the research community. The fruits of

this shame will be worth more than a million dollars and it will be a benchmark and a warning for generations to come.

Bravo Grigory!

By: Lionel Bijaoui

Lionel Bijaoui — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:08:44 +0000

Haha, that kind of characters are so great !

By: Mark Villareal

Mark Villareal — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:58:57 +0000

Donated it to a charity; thereby promoting some personal agenda by making a statement for the purpose of fluffing his own ego? The man is obviously made of equal parts humility and integrity. I’d like to see Jana accept a million and donate it to charity. Easier said than done.

By: Jana Kamal

Jana Kamal — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:35:22 +0000

He could have accepted the money and then donated it all to a charity in Russia.

How is it then, with all his ‘brilliance’, he could not solve that ‘problem’?

By: Dennis

Dennis — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:14:33 +0000

So easy, even a caveman can do it.

(sorry, after seeing his photo, I couldn’t resist)