要点：NASAR说过“只有在旧文的证明missing或者有误的情况下，新作者才能声称有CREDIT”。那么，佩氏所谓“定理7.4”（见佩是第二份预印件第19-20页）的证明是否MISSING?如果不是，什么才是？
第一帖：
I believe that Nasar likes to praise those "ill people" like Nash; and this time she was cheated by a clever person. Unfortunately, some Chinese mathematicians got involved.
Actually, from Nasar's article, one can reveal Perelman's real intention. Writing sketchy drafts is not how centuries of math/theoretical physics research has been done, and Perelman himself had not acted that way before 2002. Nasar's article describes this as taking a "risk". Clever people take risk for something, so did Perelman. I think that the person who "grab credit" is not Yau but this clever person.
某人回帖：
Perelman's "cleverness" as you call it, is irrelevant to Yau. Either Perelman gets 100 percent credit for solving the Poincare conjecture, or Kleiner, Lott, Morgan, Tian, Cao and Zhu all share credit for producing completed proofs of the conjecture. The problem that Yau will have trouble explaining is that in either case he ignores or minimizes the contributions from people who are not connected to Yau or China.
敝人之rebuttal:
Perelman's cleverness is relevant to Nasar's story. Nasar said: "only true mathematical gaps--missing or mistaken arguments--can be the basis for a claim of originality". I wonder if she consider the proof of Perelman's "Theorem 7.4" （page 19-20 in Perelman's second preprint） as missing. Three and half years have passed since he announced that another paper would be given. If it is not "MISSING", then what is the definition of "MISSING"?
评论 (0)