Whacko Russian Declines Field Medal

The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a rabbit
is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a chocolate
rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as a matter of
fact.)

Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
form a dance team.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460

HeyBub wrote:
> The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
> Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a rabb
it
> is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a chocola
te
> rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as a matter 
of
> fact.)
>

Real spheres do not carry RABBIT FLU. In the UK we have had a farmer
killed by rabbit flu contracted by picking up a rabbit on his farm.

> Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
> form a dance team.

I doubt it. He is unemployed and lives in a Moscow flat with his
mother.

>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460

BTW, no-one has yet been able to confirm Perelman's proof but there are
no significant flaws. He has previously refused a Maths prize awarded
by the EU. He may also refuse the million bucks on offer from a
Canadian institute as a bonus prize.

Oh, and he is really polite. (Not that I know him, I picked it all up
off of news.bbc.co.uk).

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12emh9iiahr99d8@news.supernews.com...
> The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
> Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a
> rabbit is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a
> chocolate rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as
> a matter of fact.)
>
> Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
> form a dance team.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460
>
>

Dr. Grisha Perelman lives in a world most of us cannot imagine. He did not
reject the Fields Medal out of arrogance; neither is he a "Whacko" (or
"wacko"). He solved a problem and posted the solution on the internet four
years ago.  His intention was to make it publicly available, not to s
fame, wealth, or kudos. (Had he wanted the latter he would have gone through
the usual submission process to an established University.) He simply
doesn't see the relevance of a million dollars or fame for doing something
he would be doing anyway, and, in his universe, anything other than the
exploration of multi-dimensional topologies is of little importance.

Have  a look at this... it is NOT a Press release where they s to
sensationalise behaviour they make no attempt to respect or understand:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/poincare-conjecture.html

My own assessment is that he possibly will share some of the cash
eventually, probably because it will improve the life of his mother.

If this man is "wacko" mad, then it is a fine madness and the world could
use some more of it...

Pete.

HeyBub wrote:

> "topologically, a rabbit is the same as a sphere."

Something that can be easily proved with a rabbit and your local
garage's tire pump set to 100psi.

> Not a REAL rabbit,

Oops, mea culpa I should have read the whole message before rushing off
to do the experiment.

I'm allergic to chocolate. Could this same proof work on a marshmallow
rabbit?  Perhaps a rabbit from a box of animal crackers. Then I would not
have to wait until Easter.

Alternatively, super glue and duct tape exist. A rabbit does not have to
have holes.

Further, must it be a rabbit? The "famed" object of an old magicians hat
trick? Why not another animal? Does it state in this proof that is must be a
mammal? I'd love to take some duct tape and super glue to that damned Geico
lizard. I'd save even more on my car insurance if those monsters (expletive
replaced) wouldn't waste so much money on advertising!

Finally, I think I could talk my boss into volunteering for such an
experiment if he were promised that he could eat the chocolate after the
conclusion of the test. You'll need about 325 pound of rude,  chocolate
to balance the equation.  Give it some though. Get back to me.

Wolf!

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12emh9iiahr99d8@news.supernews.com...
> The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
> Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a
> rabbit is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a
> chocolate rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as
> a matter of fact.)
>
> Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
> form a dance team.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460
>
>
>

Albino Timberwolf wrote:
> I'm allergic to chocolate. Could this same proof work on a marshmallow
> rabbit?  Perhaps a rabbit from a box of animal crackers. Then I would
> not have to wait until Easter.
>
> Alternatively, super glue and duct tape exist. A rabbit does not have
> to have holes.
>
> Further, must it be a rabbit? The "famed" object of an old magicians
> hat trick? Why not another animal? Does it state in this proof that
> is must be a mammal? I'd love to take some duct tape and super glue
> to that damned Geico lizard. I'd save even more on my car insurance
> if those monsters (expletive replaced) wouldn't waste so much money
> on advertising!

Yes, a rabbit is required. The "Schrodinger's cat" hypothesis just wouldn't
work if it were promoted as "Schrodinger's Star-nosed Mole" (
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/fe...0_feature2.html ).

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Dr. Grisha Perelman lives in a world most of us cannot imagine. He
> did not reject the Fields Medal out of arrogance; neither is he a
> "Whacko" (or "wacko"). He solved a problem and posted the solution on
> the internet four years ago.  His intention was to make it publicly
> available, not to s fame, wealth, or kudos. (Had he wanted the
> latter he would have gone through the usual submission process to an
> established University.) He simply doesn't see the relevance of a
> million dollars or fame for doing something he would be doing anyway,
> and, in his universe, anything other than the exploration of
> multi-dimensional topologies is of little importance.

Exactly. Certifiable, head-to-the-lab whacko.

[...]

> If this man is "wacko" mad, then it is a fine madness and the world
> could use some more of it...

And deprive so many of the joy of giving?

Seriously, though, the absense of greed is symptomatic of significant
pathological disease or defect. No, if he liked doing what he was doing
anyway, his thought processes are seriously flawed if he did not realize he
could do more of it, or do it better, with $1 million in his pocket.

Richard wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> 
>
> Something that can be easily proved with a rabbit and your local
> garage's tire pump set to 100psi.

Presumably, if stuck in the oral or nasal orifices/interstices then the
gas would leak out of the other interstice.
If stuck in the anal interstice then I would presume that the gas would
leak out of both nasal and oral interstices. A rabbit and a sphere are
not topologically equivalent but a rabbit and a cardboard tube are
topologically equivalent.

> 
>
> Oops, mea culpa I should have read the whole message before rushing off
> to do the experiment.

Alistair wrote:

> Presumably, if stuck in the oral or nasal orifices/interstices then the
> gas would leak out of the other interstice.

And at a 100psi it acts like a blunderbuss with bird shot.

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12eom1tan2be0be@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote: 
>
> Exactly. Certifiable, head-to-the-lab whacko.
>
:-) Sure, Jerry... He didn't have the advantage of being born and raised
into a capitalist consumer society, so it is no wonder his thouht processes
are a little off the beam... :-)
> [...]
> 
>
> And deprive so many of the joy of giving?
>
> Seriously, though, the absense of greed is symptomatic of significant
> pathological disease or defect.

Really? If we're being serious (and I doubt we are :-)), and having spent  a
goodly portion of my life acquainting myself with tomes on psychology and
human behaviour, having observed said behaviours at first hand in various
cultures and countries over many years, and not being averse to thinking, or
incapable of drawing conclusions from observations made, I have not found
the statement above to be true.

Perhaps you could help me remedy this possible omission in my education by
giving a cite for it? :-)

While greed, like most traits, CAN have beneficial effects, the absence of
it does not imply any kind of defect. In fact, for some of us, being driven
by greed is simply stressful and counter productive. Despite what Michael
Douglas said in "Wall Street", greed is, overall, NOT good.

You are suggesting treating cancer with herpes simplex 2. The virus may
attack certain kinds of cancer, but, given the choice, most people would
probably prefer not to have it...

Greed, on balance, is best avoided.

>No, if he liked doing what he was doing anyway, his thought processes are
>seriously flawed if he did not realize he could do more of it, or do it
>better, with $1 million in his pocket.

How exactly does the amount of money I have, improve my programming ability?
Or improve my ability to think generally? OK, if I was starving or didn't
have the basic nutritional requirements, my health could deteriorate to the
point where my thought processes might suffer, but given that the needs for
health are met, what improvement in my mental or spiritual (if you believe
in such things) growth, does having more money afford?

In my life I've been rich and I've been poor. (I mean 'poor'... no food, no
shelter, no work,  no assets, didn't speak the language, and only the
clothes I stood up in. While I value that experience, I wouldn't want to do
it again, and I could easily have lived without it....) Rich may be better
from a material comfort standpoint, it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever
on who I am or what or how I think. These days I expect to be fed, clothed
and sheltered, I expect to enjoy myself and have time for the things that
interest me; not quite to the same degree as Grisha Perelman, but I can
certainly relate to his mindset. (And I expect to provide these things for
myself, and not as a handout from Government or friends...)

Dr. Perelman has an environment that affords him the necessities (for him)
and it is enough for him. His absence of greed is not a defect; it is
something he simply has no place for.

Pete.