Good for him. Having money would disrupt his life and set back his work. I'm waiting to see what he comes up with next.
Currently he mentions that he has everything he wants and doesn't want to be paraded like an animal in the zoo for everyone to see. He doesn't want money and honors.
What has alienated him from mathematics is others dishonesty. Read the "Manifold Destiny" article from New Yorker by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2). In there you'll find a reference to Shing-Tung Yau. Quote from the article:
As for Yau, Perelman said, “I can’t say I’m outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.”
To me, the negative effect that windfall amounts of money have on a lot of people is the barest example of how people often function better under constraints. Living freely is hard.
Maybe if nobody knows that you've got the million (not the case here.) Otherwise the money may draw unwanted attention - "friends" asking you to lend them some or even criminals trying to convince you to part with the money.
Anyone in Russia who has that kind of money also has body guards and private mansions with tall electrified fences.
(Not that I would anyway, I'd be throwing $500k down on an EB-5 and moving all of our asses to California. But still..)
I can't find the exact story I read from before, though.
Isn't that odd?
I admire him.
Perelman has given fruits, but being as selfish as he is now makes him as good as dead. Imagine if Ramanujan had went back to India and given up just after the Ramanujan conjecture. Or if Erdos had called it quits shortly after working on the probabilistic method.
> Perelman has given fruits, but being as selfish as he is now makes him as good as dead.
This is one of the dumbest and offensive thing I have read here in YN.
> Imagine if Ramanujan had went back to India and given up just after the Ramanujan conjecture. Or if Erdos had called it quits shortly after working on the probabilistic method.
And what would happen? Nothing. Humanity will still be here without their contribution.
Let me list the stupid assumptions contained on those lines:
* New knowledge is simply a gift - not a product of effort. * People that produce knowledge have obligation of giving it to society. * On the top of it, now he is now "as good as dead". So let me see if I understood: leeches like jimmyjim (who probably never produced anything useful in his life) should be allowed to go on, while people like Perelman - who already given us a very valuable gift - should now die? Because he is tired, or refuses to continue to do so? Is he some kind of slave to humanity?
> Imagine if Ramanujan had went back to India and given up just after the Ramanujan conjecture. Maybe he would have a happier life for himself and his family? Maybe he would change and become a great writer? A mass murderer? A drunk? Who fucking cares, and why the fuck does it matter? It is his life, and he can do whatever he wants with it.
That's what I'm choosing to believe, anyway.
That said, let's imagine another scenario. In a late night, your mother is being raped right before my eyes. It is my moral obligation to report this, isn't it? Of course, I can choose to exercise my free right and not report this incident, because, it's my life, and I can do whatever I want with it... but if I have the capability to do so, I think I should rather satisfy my moral obligation. But maybe that's just me. And maybe you'd see better if you pulled your head out of Ayn Rand's arse.
Perelman has the capacity and capability to give fascinating gifts of knowledge to this world, and I hope that we all come to respect his wishes (to honor him in a way that it doesn't offend him), so that the newfound knowledge is used for good to better mankind.