Thursday, March 25, 2010

PERELMAN - RUSSIAN to ENGLISH Google Translation - Wow

Grigori Perelman, the only Winner (so far) of the The Clay Institute's Millennium Prize, for proving Poincaré's Conjecture:


This is a bit messy, sorry, but it's so funny I had to put it up ASAP. By "funny" I mean how "Translate a page" by Google converts Russian to English. For an easier read click here


At $ 1 million Perelman claims MOF

14:13, Moscow, Thursday, March 25, 2010

Fate award for the opening of Russia's brilliant mathematician from St. Petersburg was in the hands of Finance Minister Kudrin


Министр финансов Алексей Кудрин лично назначит налоговую ставку, если гениальный ученый Григорий Перельман все-таки решит забрать присужденную ему Премию тысячелетия в миллион долларов. Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin personally appoint the tax rate, if a brilliant scientist Grigory Perelman nevertheless decides to take the Millennium Prize awarded to him a million dollars.

- Случай Перельмана - уникальный, - сказал Life News налоговый инспектор Межрайонной налоговой инспекции Санкт-Петербурга Владимир Соловьев. - The case of Perelman - unique - Life News said the tax inspector Interregional Tax Inspection of St. Petersburg Vladimir Solovyov. - Если он заберет причитающиеся ему деньги, сразу возникнет вопрос о налогах. - If he will take the money owed to him, just a question about taxes. Есть три варианта ставки с наград: 13 %, 35 % и вообще без налога, как, например, Нобелевская премия. There are three possible rates with the awards: 13%, 35% even without the tax, such as the Nobel Prize.
В практике российского законодательства этот случай уникален и ни в каких документах и законах не прописан. In practice, Russia's law, this case is unique, and in any documents and laws are not registered.

- Поэтому решать, каким налогом облагать Перельмана, будет министр финансов Алексей Кудрин или даже президент, - продолжает Соловьев. - Therefore, to decide which tax is levied Perelman, will be Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, or even the president - continues Soloviev. - Если расценивать данную премию наравне с Нобелевской, то математик получит ровно миллион долларов. - If you viewed this on a par with the Nobel prize, the mathematician will receive exactly one million dollars. В случае если Минфин интерпретирует данную выплату как доход физического лица, то, соответственно, налог будет равняться 13 %. If the Treasury interprets this payment as income to the individual, then, accordingly, the tax will be equal to 13%. Также министр может приравнять премию к подарку, что по налоговому кодексу РФ облагается налогом в 35 %. Also, the Minister may equate to a bonus gift, that the Tax Code shall be taxed at 35%.

Сам гений до сих пор не принял точного решения насчет судьбы своего миллиона. Sam genius has not yet received the exact solution about the fate of his millions.

- Вновь повторю: я еще ничего не решил, - сказал по этому поводу сам Григорий Перельман. - I say again: I have not decided anything yet, - said on this occasion he Grigory Perelman. – Не знаю, заберу ли премию. - I do not know, I'll get a prize. И очень сомневаюсь, что все то, что вы мне рассказали о налогах, соответствует действительности. I very much doubt that everything that you told me about taxes, untrue.


43-летний математик, доказавший гипотезу Пуанкаре, в очередной раз всколыхнул мировую общественность, заявив, что размышляет над тем, взять ли присужденную ему Математическим институтом Клэя Премию тысячелетия размером в один миллион долларов. 43-year-old mathematician, proving the Poincaré conjecture, has once again stirred the world community, saying that is reflecting on whether to take the award to him Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize size of one million dollars.

Четыре года назад Перельман уже потряс мир отказом от медали Филдса и не приехал в Испанию в день вручения, объяснив это тем, что главная награда для него - правильное доказательство теоремы. Four years ago, Perelman had already shocked the world rejection of the Fields Medal and has not arrived in Spain on the day of delivery, explaining that the main reward for him - the correct proof of the theorem. Но сейчас математический гений колеблется. But now, mathematical genius range.

- Я еще не принял никакого решения, - сказал по телефону Перельман. - I have not yet taken any decision, - said by telephone Perelman. - Если что-то решу, первым об этом узнает институт Клэя, который и учредил премию. - If you decide something, first finds out Clay Institute, which established the prize. Но пока ничего не решено. But so far nothing has been decided.
Гипотезу Пуанкаре целый век не мог доказать ни один ученый. Poincare conjecture for a century could not prove any one scientist. А в 2002 году Перельман выложил в Интернет свое доказательство этой задачи. And in 2002, Perelman put it to the Internet their proof of this problem. Несколько лет математики с мировым именем проверяли верность решения и пришли к выводу, что оно правильное. Several years of mathematics with a worldwide reputation verified loyalty solutions and concluded that it is correct. Именно за это американский математический институт Клэя и решил присудить петербуржцу миллионную Премию тысячелетия. It is for this American Clay Mathematics Institute and decided to award the prize Petersburgians millionth millennium.


Ученый-затворник практически не выходит из своей трехкомнатной квартиры в Купчино, где живет вместе с 81-летней мамой Любовью Лейбовной. Scientific reclusive almost never out of his three-room apartment in Kupchino, where he lives together with the 81-year-old mother love Leybovnoy.


Жилище Перельманов совсем не похоже на хоромы миллионеров: все комнаты завалены книгами, бумагами и многочисленными рукописями Григория Яковлевича. Residence Perelman is quite unlike the mansions of millionaires: all the rooms are piled high with books, papers, and numerous manuscripts Gregory. В одной из небольших комнат в углу стоит старинное запыленное пианино, в зале - маленькая скрипка и контрабас. In one small room in the corner stands an old dusty piano in the hall - a small violin and double bass.

Соседи изредка сталкиваются с гениальным математиком. Neighbors occasionally faced with a brilliant mathematician. Только тогда, когда он выбирается в ближайший магазин за молоком и хлебом. Only when it is selected in the nearest store to buy milk and bread. Быстрой походкой, проверяя на ходу почтовый ящик в подъезде, Григорий спешит в супермаркет, закупается и также скоро идет обратно, словно боится потерять драгоценные минуты, необходимые для решения новых "задач тысячелетия". Quick step, checking on the move a mailbox in the hallway, Gregory rushes to the supermarket, bought and soon also goes back, as though afraid of losing precious minutes needed to meet the new "millennium problems".

- Он постоянно думает о чем-то своем, - говорит соседка Перельманов. - He is always thinking about something else - a neighbor said Perelman. - Видно, что нипочем ему слава и почести разные. - It is evident that transcend his glory and honor different. Удивительный человек! Amazing man!

19 comments:

Steven Colyer said...

I wish to note that if you see how quickly in that last vid he gave change at the store, that not only is Perelman a brilliant Mathematician, but he's also damn good at "counting" as well.

Please don't delude yourself that those two things have correlation.

But they do in Perelman. Awesome. :-)

Jérôme CHAUVET said...

The video of Perelman you found is so funny. The guy is definitely scared of getting famous : he runs away from the camera as if he was followed by a monster... I remark he does live in some crappy socialist building, from which he could have moved on to a palace if he had accepted Clay Institute's million dollars price... At worst, he could've built his own Mathematics Institute with this money... Or perhaps give it to me (I have got a lot of ideas about how to use it properly).

Well, the guy is interesting anyway ; he feels awarded something for having proven Poincaré's conjecture, which proves he considers mathematics as being valuable above everything.

Best,

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

Mathematical genius and strange in a lot of cases is the norm rather than the exception. You begin with Archimedes running naked through the streets of Athens shouting “Eureka” and go through those like Cantor, Turing, Godel and Nash. These people reside in a different world then most and find significance in things that exist on another plane of reality which few ever come to know. Therefore I don’t find Perelman’s actions as unusual, yet only as confirmation as to the elite company in terms of mathematical thinkers to with he belongs.

Best,

Phil

Steven Colyer said...

Perelman may be the most intelligent man on Earth as opposed to say Ed Witten. Mathematicians in general have a unique combination of creativity and intellect that we mere mortals can only aspire to and hold in awe.

Nevertheless, they have weird personalities. Case in point:

Near the end of its heyday, when it attracted only the finest Mathematicians, Quantum Physicists, and Electrical Engineers on the planet in one place, AT&T Bell Labs held a mid-1990's family picnic at a fine indoor/outdoor German restaurant in Somerset County NJ where I live, and which I attended with a close family member.

Everyone socialized and had a good time all afternoon, except Quantum Physicist Federico Capasso (now at Harvard) who wanted to talk shop (but not all the time, so he had some fun too).

The Mathematicians on the other hand ...

Well, they all sat at this one picnic table, not talking. They all looked like Perelman. I swear had I not known better I'd have thought they were rehearsing for a Che Guevara look-alike contest. They didn't look happy to be there, to be "socializing." I have no clue if even one had a family member. I doubt it. They were ... strange.

So, they're different from us. Who knows what even half of them are thinking, or why? But their brains are definitely somewhere else.

Somewhere wonderful, I imagine. :-)

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

That was an interesting story which doesn’t surprise me in the least. The difference between physicists and mathematicians. being the physicists are people attempting to find the mathematics that describes our world, while the mathematicians are describing worlds of which only they have come to realize and wondering why so few of the rest of us haven’t.

That is truth being, that unlike physics, where the answers are often hard for many to understand, with respect to what those like Perelman deal with most don’t even understand the questions. As an experiment when you go out today, asks somebody to tell you what Poincare’s Conjecture is, then stop another and ask what Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has proven. Then ask yet another what Cantor’s Set Theorem has demonstrated as true and when they answer they don’t know, tell them he proved infinities come in different sizes. I can almost guarantee at this point whomever you stopped will think you just escaped from a place where you need to be returned and thus should we wonder why Perelman thinks it better not to venture out in the first place:-)

Best,

Phil

Steven Colyer said...

You like stories, Phil? Well, you came to the right place. First up: Riemann's Hypothesis (which he may have solved, but his housekeeper threw out). It goes like this:

In “Some Mathematicians I Have Known”, The American Mathematical Monthly, September 1969,
Pólya, an associate of [English Mathematician Godfrey Harold ]Hardy’s, tells of the time when Hardy spent one summer in Denmark visiting Harald Bohr.

When he was obliged to return to England for the new term, there was only one small boat to take him across the channel and the seas appeared particularly rough.

Hardy was concerned the boat might capsize and he would drown. Then a brilliant plan occurred to him. He sent messages to Bohr and colleagues back at Cambridge that he had proved the Riemann hypothesis. This done, Hardy
hopped on the boat, found a comfortable spot, and promptly fell asleep until they reached England.

Why was Hardy so confident he would arrive safely back on English soil?

First, God hated Hardy.

Secondly, Hardy was one of the world’s most respected mathematicians. Had he drowned the
mathematical world would believe that he had died taking with him the secret of the proof of the
Riemann hypothesis. Hardy was certain that God would never allow him such an honor. Thus He
would not let the boat sink.

From: here.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

A good story which has me to wonder if Fermat’s compliant about the lack of space in the margin was to serve a similar purpose:-)

Best,

Phil

P.S. Wouldn't you know it, that just as things are getting interesting I have to ready myself to go to work!

Jérôme CHAUVET said...

Hi Phil and Steven,

Cantor is said to have turned mad in his late days. Extreme intelligence and great madness seem to be somewhat not far away from each other.... Concerning Perelman, I think the guy has so the ability to deconstruct things that are thought to be sure and stable (to be anti-conservative, shortly speaking) that he needs to stabilize all things around him to maintain his global mental equilibrium. According to this homeostasis, the extreme stability of his environment may compensate the extreme "unstability" of his thoughts, which allows him to shift from one paradigm to another without suffering from anxiety and stress. This is my explanation of the Perelman phenomenon :)

Regards,

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Jérôme,

All the people I mentioned other then Archimedes, had a documented history of mental illness and with the legend of him running naked through the streets, even suspicion here might be warranted. I however have thought about this in the past and have arrived at a different conclusion, with it being the apparent (comparative) lack of reason and intelligence of those they find themselves among, that may have them to first appear as strange and then at times actually have them go mad.

I arrived at this hypnosis when considering the IQ Bell Curve. to note both how symmetrical it was and also curious about it in terms of evolutionary outcomes, results and pressures. There are a lot of thoughts I’ve had in such regard. yet the one in particular which would have application here I would explain as follows.

So first if we recognize that the vast majority of people are found in the middle of the IQ curve and then looking to the left how people in the last two percentile look to them. as being so dull (slow witted) at best, proceeding down further to something barely recognizable as being human. Then to recognize those to the right in their two percentile are seen as quick witted, all the way to ones who we comprehend within the context of having extraordinary and exceptional abilities. Now let’s look at how those to the middle must appear to those on the far right to be much and the same as those on the left looked to those of the middle. However, what’s more relevant here, is what about that very small percentage that are on the extreme right how would the rest appear in terms of reason, ability and insight; with me saying pretty limited, leaving them hard to reason, communicate or even identify with.

So now just imagine yourself, still having only the capacity of the formentioned mean and yet suddenly finding yourself among a population that exists to be almost entirely comprised of those on the far left of the curve. First it would have you appear very strange to all of them and even have you left so frustrated and isolated to actually eventually go mad. That’s being here we find that a symmetry once found , has things be the same no matter from which direction observed, as to also present as an invariance of sorts.which is so common with the rest of nature.

Best,

Phil

Jérôme CHAUVET said...

Hi Phil,

So what you are thinking is geniuses look weird and finally go mad because of their hard socialization, which makes them feel isolated like an old man living on top of a mountain. That's a very interesting view-point, which I did not consider so far... In fact, there's a French saying, which reads so: "Who can the most, can the least", and maybe for the reason I bear it on mind when thinking about geniuses, I have never got to consider your option. My view-point was rather based on the homeostasis principle, which states our physiology needs to globally stabilize, and which I freely applied to Perelman's neurology... Another view-point could be to say that geniuses have their brain circuitries so much specialized in logical tasks that they hardly deal with the many noisy stimuli exerted on them in the everyday life. It can be another explanation.

Regards,

Steven Colyer said...

Again, what I get from Perelman is he's basically a guy who has seen so much crap in his life (Soviet anti-Semitism) that he thinks ALL authorities are SO screwed up, he's having nothing to do with any of them.

One thing I think he DOES believe in is his mother. He lives with her. I bet he loves her. It's probably why he lives where he lives, because it's where she lives. It's HER neighborhood. She has neighbors and friends there. Why move? How long has she got?

What a good son.

;-)

Also, remember that Dirac didn't want to accept his Nobel prize, because he hated fame. The only reason he accepted it was because it was pointed out to him that if he refused it, he would be even MORE famous for rejecting it.

I wonder if Perelman knows that? I don't see how he can't by now.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Jérôme,

Yes I understand your viewpoint, which indeed could be true or perhaps you’re pointing to the noise eliminating quality of their minds. I for one wished this could be true, since my mother so often reminded me as a boy I was hard of listening; now only to find myself mostly cured of that to be more hard of hearing:-) Just as well as being one as Perleman is certainly no blessing to envy in many respects.

Actually what served to reinforced my thoughts on what I think might be the reason, is in reading how much Albert Einstein enjoyed Kurt Godel’s company, which was also reciprocal. From the time of Godel’s arrival at the Institute for Advanced Studies up until Einstein’s death they walked every day to work, talking all the while , fine or foul weather, with Einstein remarking that it was more fulfilling then his own research at the time ,with Godel saying much the same.

So perhaps the best place for such people are when they’re among one another, so as not to feel so isolated as to be understood and appreciated. That is of course until the day, if it ever comes, when being as they are is more the rule rather than the exception. Then of course it’s all a matter of perspective for the curve won’t disappear it will only shift and hopefully to the right.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

That fact is most everyone in Russia has experienced the same as Perleman and thus most should be so affected. That’s not to say that he doesn’t percieve such behaviour as complete lunacy more then others, yet that leads us back to my point. As for his attachment to his mother although commendable I think you can be assured it’s more beneficial for him then her as we all know there is nothing like a mother’s love and understanding as being unconditional and something one can trust.

Actually Kurt Godel’s wife Adele served as such for him, even to the point of alway preparing the food he ate and sampling it from his plate, as he was convinced at times people were conspiring to poison him. I n fact he destabilized badly shortly after Einstein’s death and when his wife become ill and hospitalized he starved himself to death as not having her there to cook and taste for him. Curiously Cantor suffered the same fate and meet similar ends under comparative circumstances. I’m also reminded of Nash’s imaginary friend and ask if it be so odd to invent someone when you have no one else in the world able to share your thoughts?

“Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner? “

-Plato – Allegory of The Cave


Best,

Phil

Jérôme CHAUVET said...

Phil's story about Gödel's trouble with food reminds me of a friend I have known at the University of Montpellier, who was a researcher in computing and logic in broadband networks (or kind of such subject...). He was quite brilliant, constantly spoke with logical tricks in his sentences that impressed me much, and was clearly the kind of you say of: Wow! Yes, that guy is smart. But if you came into a restaurant and had lunch with him, you then had an evidence he had weird sides... In fact, he only ate meat if it was one of fish. He never ate meat of mammals... For a justification, he claimed mammals were endowed with consciousness whereas fishes were not, so it was fair to eat the latter, but not the former... He never told how he inferred such a bold statement: he only found it... logical to think so. He had stated a threshold among the animals world separating conscious and unconscious animals, and regulated which sort of meat would or would not get down to his stomach accordingly.

This trouble with food among logicians maybe has a deep psychological ground which we don't know of. Intriguing...

Regards,

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

Well your story about your friend as to what he chose to eat would be strange for our times, unless of course one converted to Hinduism where you would eat no meat at all. Sadly though beginning back twenty years or more, many that headed off the University returned with similar notions as your friend, in determining what was eatable as judging if it were conscious or not. Fortunately both my daughters escaped this happening to them, yet many of their friends including some cousins were so indoctrinated and many remain so to this day.

It’s obvious to me none of them read Penrose’s book “Shadows of the Mind” since he makes quite a good argument that all life ,right down to single celled creatures have and display a level of consciousness despite being only being single cells with that not being a neuron. That would have anyone who read it to be forced to considerthat any living thing having some level of consciousness and thus I don’t know what they would considered themselves abke to eat.

Interestingly enough, part of Penrose’s argument regarding consciousness relies on Godel’s incompleteness theorem, which in itself forms an intriguing connection. Also as time goes by Penrose’s ideas are looking more and more to have perhaps some truth to them. However,for me the major benefit I derived from its reading, being despite attempting before to understand Godel’s argument it wasn’t until I read this book that I felt I had any grasp of the logic itself. So the one thing I come away with is in learning if you want to understand the difficult thoughts of a genius, it might be better accommodated through the mind and explanations of another. The difference with Penrose I would say being he involves himself with physics, as well as his math, which serves to ground him a little more as him being able to laugh at himself which includes his peculiarities.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Jérôme,

I’m sorry I just noticed I got you and Steven confused in my last comment.

Best,

Phil

Steven Colyer said...

Yeah, no problem, Phil. I think Jérôme and I got it. We all make small mistakes, no big woof.

You're still THE man who gets what Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were about and we learn from your knowledge and are grateful for your wisdom, so all is forgiven, easily.

kashif14763 said...

Really very relevant artical with the topic it is good work. http://www.translation.pk