4 ms·

Ok so what awards ceremony selection process isn’t political? Any guess on who is in consideration of the 2018 prize? I imagine those under consideration are a

Ok so what awards ceremony selection process isn’t political? Any guess on who is in consideration of the 2018 prize? I imagine those under consideration are already at top tier institutions. Is no noteworthy mathematics being done at less prestigious institutions? (Loaded question I know) but it would be cool to see some undiscovered mathematician doing ground breaking stuff at a lesser known university.

fantispug 9y ago
Like Grigori Perelman did?
- majos 9y ago
  It appears that Grigori Perelman was a well-known mathematician even before his work on the Poincare conjecture. He proved the wonderfully named "soul conjecture" almost a decade beforehand.
  - raincom 9y ago
    Even though he proved "soul conjecture", no university in the US wanted to give him a tenure job. Instead, they offered him a tenure track position. Once he proved the Poincare, every one wants him on their faculty. Because of this, Princeton offered Manjul Bhargava (another Fields winner) a tenure job right away without putting on the rigma role of tenure-track.
impendia 9y ago
(Professional mathematician here, indeed one at a less prestigious institution.) I would argue that medalists' universities have been reasonably diverse. For example, in the US since 1990, medals have gone to mathematicians from Rutgers and three separate University of California campuses. These are prestigious universities to be sure, but it's not like all the medalists are from the same two or three places. > it would be cool to see some undiscovered mathematician I think "undiscovered mathematicians" are very rare, for the reason that mathematics is an inherently social activity. We are constantly reading each other's papers, visiting each others' universities to give talks, and meeting each other at conferences. If you do excellent work, then in general your peers will learn about it and spread the word.
rvo 9y ago
Ciprian Manolescu or Peter Scholze (perhaps he is too young for it for this year).
- tacomonstrous 9y ago
  I would be shocked if Scholze didn't win this year.
yodsanklai 9y ago
> Is no noteworthy mathematics being done at less prestigious institutions? People with high-potential are detected early on and can choose to work in the most prestigious institutions. It's like a pro-athlete. You don't expect Michael Jordan to be playing with a small local team.
- opportune 9y ago
  I think people are psychologically averse to acknowledging this level of "filtering" even though it's mostly true, because it suggests an uncomfortable level of inequality. However I do think that there might be just a little too much focus on contest-math when it comes to identifying the country's best mathematicians. It's easily seen that the best contest mathematicians usually become the best professional mathematicians. In aggregate, though, most contest-math participants come from a very particular demographic (i.e. they live in big cities in wealthy areas, have very supportive/tiger parents (this is the key), go to magnet schools, obviously practice a lot, etc.). These people are still probably much more likely than average to become professionals, but it filters out a lot of bright people from less wealthy families or areas, or in regions where culturally math competitions are barely even a thing.
  - wbl 9y ago
    That's not that true. Plenty of non IMO/Putnam people have won Fields Medals.
    - opportune 9y ago
      I think you may have misinterpreted my comment, because I'm really in agreement with what you just said: placing near the top in prestigious math contests indicates that you'll probably be a good professional mathematician, but not having top contest-math scores does not preclude you from being a good professional mathematician. In general I think placement into top math undergrad/PhD programs (e.g. Harvard) should be less focused on contest math.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
cybertronic 9y ago
https://www.quantamagazine.org/will-peter-scholze-win-the-fields-medal-in-2018-20160628/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/will-peter-scholze-win-the-fi...
auggierose 9y ago
How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang

fantispug 9y ago

Like Grigori Perelman did?

majos 9y ago
It appears that Grigori Perelman was a well-known mathematician even before his work on the Poincare conjecture. He proved the wonderfully named "soul conjecture" almost a decade beforehand.
- raincom 9y ago
  Even though he proved "soul conjecture", no university in the US wanted to give him a tenure job. Instead, they offered him a tenure track position. Once he proved the Poincare, every one wants him on their faculty. Because of this, Princeton offered Manjul Bhargava (another Fields winner) a tenure job right away without putting on the rigma role of tenure-track.

impendia 9y ago

(Professional mathematician here, indeed one at a less prestigious institution.) I would argue that medalists' universities have been reasonably diverse. For example, in the US since 1990, medals have gone to mathematicians from Rutgers and three separate University of California campuses. These are prestigious universities to be sure, but it's not like all the medalists are from the same two or three places. > it would be cool to see some undiscovered mathematician I think "undiscovered mathematicians" are very rare, for the reason that mathematics is an inherently social activity. We are constantly reading each other's papers, visiting each others' universities to give talks, and meeting each other at conferences. If you do excellent work, then in general your peers will learn about it and spread the word.

rvo 9y ago

Ciprian Manolescu or Peter Scholze (perhaps he is too young for it for this year).

tacomonstrous 9y ago
I would be shocked if Scholze didn't win this year.

yodsanklai 9y ago

> Is no noteworthy mathematics being done at less prestigious institutions? People with high-potential are detected early on and can choose to work in the most prestigious institutions. It's like a pro-athlete. You don't expect Michael Jordan to be playing with a small local team.

opportune 9y ago
I think people are psychologically averse to acknowledging this level of "filtering" even though it's mostly true, because it suggests an uncomfortable level of inequality. However I do think that there might be just a little too much focus on contest-math when it comes to identifying the country's best mathematicians. It's easily seen that the best contest mathematicians usually become the best professional mathematicians. In aggregate, though, most contest-math participants come from a very particular demographic (i.e. they live in big cities in wealthy areas, have very supportive/tiger parents (this is the key), go to magnet schools, obviously practice a lot, etc.). These people are still probably much more likely than average to become professionals, but it filters out a lot of bright people from less wealthy families or areas, or in regions where culturally math competitions are barely even a thing.
- wbl 9y ago
  That's not that true. Plenty of non IMO/Putnam people have won Fields Medals.
  - opportune 9y ago
    I think you may have misinterpreted my comment, because I'm really in agreement with what you just said: placing near the top in prestigious math contests indicates that you'll probably be a good professional mathematician, but not having top contest-math scores does not preclude you from being a good professional mathematician. In general I think placement into top math undergrad/PhD programs (e.g. Harvard) should be less focused on contest math.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

cybertronic 9y ago

https://www.quantamagazine.org/will-peter-scholze-win-the-fields-medal-in-2018-20160628/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/will-peter-scholze-win-the-fi...

auggierose 9y ago

How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang