5 ms·

Yitang “Tom” Zhang and fame in mathematics

auggierose 10y ago
This guy sounds like a plant. A plant which is great at mathematics.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mherrmann 10y ago
I find this very inspiring, because it seems like he's not necessarily a genius but just worked really hard and didn't give up. Also, he was in his late fifties when he published his proof, going against the commonly held belief that mathematicians do their best work before 40. [edit:] Peter Sarnak from Princeton does call him a genius. When you read about him online, you actually find several other people who have known/worked with him to call him that as well. So I guess I was wrong. > Why did you solve this problem and not somebody else? > I think the important reason is that I persisted for several years. I didn’t give up. > How long did you work on your conjecture? > I worked on my conjecture for four years. I worked on it seven days a week. I didn’t take any breaks almost. If we count the time I spent thinking about the problem, then it was more than 10 hours a day. If you count sitting in front of a desk or using a computer, then it was five or six hours a day.
- muddyrivers 10y ago
  I have different interpretation of being a genius. Being a genius doesn't mean she or he can solve really hard problems easily. One is a genius if he or she does solve really hard problems, especially in the fields like math, physics, etc. where all low-hanging fruits were way gone. Both Zhang and Perelman are genius, in my eyes. It doesn't matter how long it takes one to solve the hard problems. It sounds a fairy tale to me that someone wakes up one day with a genius thought, and two weeks later, complete a solution for a really hard problem in math, physics, etc. in nowadays.
- rifung 10y ago
  One thing I think you will notice both with him and others who are successful was that they never were interested in fame or success. He seems to do mathematics merely because he enjoys it. What I'm trying to say is that perhaps you shouldn't worry too much about whether you are a genius or smart enough but just try to be happy by doing something you enjoy.
  - argonaut 10y ago
    Yeah, also it's worth pointing out that he finished a PhD in math. That is already genius level mathematics as far as most people are concerned; certainly relative to your average undergraduate STEM student.
imh 10y ago
> Q: Is the most likely application of this result in cryptography? > A: Yes, this should be true. > Q: Are you interested in cryptography? > A: Not so much. Pure mathematicians are awesome.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  And: > Q: What do you think of Grigori Perelman, who turned down the Fields Medal? > A: I think it was because of his personality also. Maybe he himself was very proud of himself. Maybe he looked down on other people, even looked down on very important prizes and medals. > Q: Would you accept a medal? > A: Yes. > Q: What would you do with the money? > A: Maybe the best way would be to give the money to my wife. Let her deal with this issue. Wow.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    I really like this guy, and I'd probably answer the last two questions in the same way (wife coming soon!).
  - sho_hn 10y ago
    > Wow. There's quite a few cultures where it's a traditional norm to put one's wife in charge of the household finances (cultures in which that wife tends to be stuck at home running it, whereas the husband is mostly home to sleep and otherwise working himself to death). The husband is given sort of an allowance to spend. It's not a strange idea for many people on the planet.
- Ar-Curunir 10y ago
  I don't know why this result would have applications in crypto; you could have just assumed the twin prime conjecture to prove your algorithm correct.
moomin 10y ago
Is Zhang a genius? Maybe not, but consider the possibility that he is. We have a particular expectation of what a genius looks and sounds like that he doesn't conform to. Jeremy Lin, again, didn't look like a star, except to a few geeks who reckoned his numbers told a different story to that his own coach believed. How many people like Lin and Zhang are we missing? Those who, given a little more opportunity, could have become obviously exceptional.
- Sonthun 10y ago
  I can't endorse the movie "Whiplash" because it is so crass, but it takes an interesting look at what it takes to be truly great. I don't think we "miss" people like Lin and Zhang because they make themselves. Intelligence and skill really make a small part of the overall requirement for success. Hard work, perseverance, preparation, and choosing the right problems to work on are really more important.
  - selestify 10y ago
    Certainly we could make it more likely for such people to reach their fullest potential, though?
  - moomin 10y ago
    But the problem stands no matter which qualities you think are important. Lin, for instance, was just plain lucky. He was due to be dropped but a spate of injuries gave him an opportunity to shine he hadn't had before. Equally, you can talk about any number of desirable qualities Zuckerberg and Brin had but you can't ignore the fact that they went to accelerators for gifted children rather than a public school in the rough end of town.
keithpeter 10y ago
"What would you say to a young student who wants to solve a problem? Keep going. Do not easily give up." Sounds like good advice.
mherrmann 10y ago
There's an interesting 1-hour-long documentary about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA
- mherrmann 10y ago
  Follow-up video where Terence Tao explains in very simple terms the history of the problem(s) and how people improved on Zhang's 70,000,000 constant afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp06oGD4m00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp06oGD4m00
ithinkinstereo 10y ago
I found his old beef with his graduate advisor interesting. From wikipedia: "Zhang's Ph.D. work was on the Jacobian conjecture. After graduation, Zhang had a hard time finding an academic position. In a 2013 interview with Nautilus magazine, Zhang said he did not get a job after graduation. "During that period it was difficult to find a job in academics. That was a job market problem. Also, my advisor did not write me letters of recommendation." The reason behind this is that Zhang's research pointed out the mistakes made by his advisor Tzuong-Tsieng Moh's previous work. Moh was very unhappy with this and refused to write the job recommendation letter for Zhang. Zhang made this claim again in George Csicsery’s documentary film Counting From Infinity while discussing his difficulties at Purdue and in the years that followed. Tzuong-Tsieng Moh, his Ph.D. advisor at Purdue, said that Zhang never came back to him requesting recommendation letters.[8] In a detailed profile published in The New Yorker magazine in February 2015, Alec Wilkinson wrote Zhang "parted unhappily" with Moh, and that Zhang 'left Purdue without Moh’s support, and, having published no papers, was unable to find an academic job'" His advisor wrote his own version of events here: https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ttm/ZhangYt.pdf https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ttm/ZhangYt.pdf Crazy how this one guy derailed a genius like Zhang. Glad to see he found his way back, but sad that he had to endure almost a decade in the wilderness - at one point even homeless (living out of his car) - working minimum wage jobs just to get by.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  It actually sounds like the "having published no papers" bit was the primary reason he wasn't able to get a job. Not having an advisor recommendation is not a good sign, but it's hard to argue with published work.
  - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
    That's a valid point. I know in Mathematics quality seems to trump quantity but having _no_ articles certainly didn't do him any favors. But the lack of LORs... that would be a scarlet letter, no? I've never heard of a PHD advisor doing that; seems quite intentional and not at all like the way he presents it in his little essay I linked in my last post.
  - 10y ago
nullnilvoid 10y ago
Such a huge inspiration. He has achieved the impossible with all odds against him.
pmiller2 10y ago
The article mentioned Polymath 8, which lowered the bound from H=7*10^7 to 4680. This bound has since been lowered[0] to 246. --- [0]: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/polymath8b-ix-large-quadratic-programs/#comment-297456 https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/polymath8b-ix-larg...
- ctchocula 10y ago
  I believe it's 246 iff the generalized Elliott-Halberstam is true, and 4680 iff it's false. edit: Never mind. You're right. It's 6 assuming the generalized Elliott–Halberstam conjecture is true, and 246 without assuming the conjecture.
chenster 10y ago
Yitang Zhang and the Twin Prime Conjecture [2015 Documentary]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA

This guy sounds like a plant. A plant which is great at mathematics.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

I find this very inspiring, because it seems like he's not necessarily a genius but just worked really hard and didn't give up. Also, he was in his late fifties when he published his proof, going against the commonly held belief that mathematicians do their best work before 40. [edit:] Peter Sarnak from Princeton does call him a genius. When you read about him online, you actually find several other people who have known/worked with him to call him that as well. So I guess I was wrong. > Why did you solve this problem and not somebody else? > I think the important reason is that I persisted for several years. I didn’t give up. > How long did you work on your conjecture? > I worked on my conjecture for four years. I worked on it seven days a week. I didn’t take any breaks almost. If we count the time I spent thinking about the problem, then it was more than 10 hours a day. If you count sitting in front of a desk or using a computer, then it was five or six hours a day.

muddyrivers 10y ago
I have different interpretation of being a genius. Being a genius doesn't mean she or he can solve really hard problems easily. One is a genius if he or she does solve really hard problems, especially in the fields like math, physics, etc. where all low-hanging fruits were way gone. Both Zhang and Perelman are genius, in my eyes. It doesn't matter how long it takes one to solve the hard problems. It sounds a fairy tale to me that someone wakes up one day with a genius thought, and two weeks later, complete a solution for a really hard problem in math, physics, etc. in nowadays.
rifung 10y ago
One thing I think you will notice both with him and others who are successful was that they never were interested in fame or success. He seems to do mathematics merely because he enjoys it. What I'm trying to say is that perhaps you shouldn't worry too much about whether you are a genius or smart enough but just try to be happy by doing something you enjoy.
- argonaut 10y ago
  Yeah, also it's worth pointing out that he finished a PhD in math. That is already genius level mathematics as far as most people are concerned; certainly relative to your average undergraduate STEM student.

imh 10y ago

> Q: Is the most likely application of this result in cryptography? > A: Yes, this should be true. > Q: Are you interested in cryptography? > A: Not so much. Pure mathematicians are awesome.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
And: > Q: What do you think of Grigori Perelman, who turned down the Fields Medal? > A: I think it was because of his personality also. Maybe he himself was very proud of himself. Maybe he looked down on other people, even looked down on very important prizes and medals. > Q: Would you accept a medal? > A: Yes. > Q: What would you do with the money? > A: Maybe the best way would be to give the money to my wife. Let her deal with this issue. Wow.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I really like this guy, and I'd probably answer the last two questions in the same way (wife coming soon!).
- sho_hn 10y ago
  > Wow. There's quite a few cultures where it's a traditional norm to put one's wife in charge of the household finances (cultures in which that wife tends to be stuck at home running it, whereas the husband is mostly home to sleep and otherwise working himself to death). The husband is given sort of an allowance to spend. It's not a strange idea for many people on the planet.
Ar-Curunir 10y ago
I don't know why this result would have applications in crypto; you could have just assumed the twin prime conjecture to prove your algorithm correct.

moomin 10y ago

Is Zhang a genius? Maybe not, but consider the possibility that he is. We have a particular expectation of what a genius looks and sounds like that he doesn't conform to. Jeremy Lin, again, didn't look like a star, except to a few geeks who reckoned his numbers told a different story to that his own coach believed. How many people like Lin and Zhang are we missing? Those who, given a little more opportunity, could have become obviously exceptional.

Sonthun 10y ago
I can't endorse the movie "Whiplash" because it is so crass, but it takes an interesting look at what it takes to be truly great. I don't think we "miss" people like Lin and Zhang because they make themselves. Intelligence and skill really make a small part of the overall requirement for success. Hard work, perseverance, preparation, and choosing the right problems to work on are really more important.
- selestify 10y ago
  Certainly we could make it more likely for such people to reach their fullest potential, though?
- moomin 10y ago
  But the problem stands no matter which qualities you think are important. Lin, for instance, was just plain lucky. He was due to be dropped but a spate of injuries gave him an opportunity to shine he hadn't had before. Equally, you can talk about any number of desirable qualities Zuckerberg and Brin had but you can't ignore the fact that they went to accelerators for gifted children rather than a public school in the rough end of town.

keithpeter 10y ago

"What would you say to a young student who wants to solve a problem? Keep going. Do not easily give up." Sounds like good advice.

mherrmann 10y ago

There's an interesting 1-hour-long documentary about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA

mherrmann 10y ago
Follow-up video where Terence Tao explains in very simple terms the history of the problem(s) and how people improved on Zhang's 70,000,000 constant afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp06oGD4m00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp06oGD4m00

ithinkinstereo 10y ago

I found his old beef with his graduate advisor interesting. From wikipedia: "Zhang's Ph.D. work was on the Jacobian conjecture. After graduation, Zhang had a hard time finding an academic position. In a 2013 interview with Nautilus magazine, Zhang said he did not get a job after graduation. "During that period it was difficult to find a job in academics. That was a job market problem. Also, my advisor did not write me letters of recommendation." The reason behind this is that Zhang's research pointed out the mistakes made by his advisor Tzuong-Tsieng Moh's previous work. Moh was very unhappy with this and refused to write the job recommendation letter for Zhang. Zhang made this claim again in George Csicsery’s documentary film Counting From Infinity while discussing his difficulties at Purdue and in the years that followed. Tzuong-Tsieng Moh, his Ph.D. advisor at Purdue, said that Zhang never came back to him requesting recommendation letters.[8] In a detailed profile published in The New Yorker magazine in February 2015, Alec Wilkinson wrote Zhang "parted unhappily" with Moh, and that Zhang 'left Purdue without Moh’s support, and, having published no papers, was unable to find an academic job'" His advisor wrote his own version of events here: https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ttm/ZhangYt.pdf https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ttm/ZhangYt.pdf Crazy how this one guy derailed a genius like Zhang. Glad to see he found his way back, but sad that he had to endure almost a decade in the wilderness - at one point even homeless (living out of his car) - working minimum wage jobs just to get by.

pmiller2 10y ago
It actually sounds like the "having published no papers" bit was the primary reason he wasn't able to get a job. Not having an advisor recommendation is not a good sign, but it's hard to argue with published work.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago
  That's a valid point. I know in Mathematics quality seems to trump quantity but having _no_ articles certainly didn't do him any favors. But the lack of LORs... that would be a scarlet letter, no? I've never heard of a PHD advisor doing that; seems quite intentional and not at all like the way he presents it in his little essay I linked in my last post.
- 10y ago

nullnilvoid 10y ago

Such a huge inspiration. He has achieved the impossible with all odds against him.

pmiller2 10y ago

The article mentioned Polymath 8, which lowered the bound from H=7*10^7 to 4680. This bound has since been lowered[0] to 246. --- [0]: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/polymath8b-ix-large-quadratic-programs/#comment-297456 https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/polymath8b-ix-larg...

ctchocula 10y ago
I believe it's 246 iff the generalized Elliott-Halberstam is true, and 4680 iff it's false. edit: Never mind. You're right. It's 6 assuming the generalized Elliott–Halberstam conjecture is true, and 246 without assuming the conjecture.

chenster 10y ago

Yitang Zhang and the Twin Prime Conjecture [2015 Documentary]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIyKWxGhEA