Close

Complete Captcha

• 4 years - 1893 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 963 Goods vs 664 No Goods

1. Economist
   2800
   

   The selecting committee has a bias against Chinese mathematicians.
   There's been 2 cycles where several who were eligible for the FM, have not been chosen.
   These are Math breakthrough prize winners like Wei Zhang, Yun, Xu, Qinwen and not to forget Song Sun too.
   I suspect if there were several French mathematicians who were in a similar position for at least 2 cycles, one of them would have won definitively.
   Do they think they are cheating or copying or something? Lol

   The Chinese "Breakthrough Prize Winners" won the more minor New Horizons prize, not the full Breakthrough Prize.

   8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   9939
   

   School wise breakdown for any high schoolers discovering this thread and thinking about where to go to study math:

   1. Hugo Duminil Copin - another ENS Paris undergrad, 3rd Geneva PhD to ever win
   2. James Maynard- another Cambridge Math Tripos graduate, 2nd Oxford PhD to ever win
   3. June Huh - first (?) Seoul National Uni grad, one of the few (like Witten) who didn’t have an undergrad in Math, 2nd Michigan PhD to ever win (other being Smale)
   4. Maryna Viazovska - 3rd Bonn PhD to win (others being Scholze and Kontsevich), earlier degrees from Ukraine, first (?) person to win with an undergrad/masters from Kiev

   As far as I know, none of the medallists are IMO participants/winners, and none of them received undergrad in US so no Putnam either.

   8 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 1 Vlad !

3. Economist
   80c1
   

   I would say only wei zhang in 2018 is close, the others are just not strong enough.

   The selecting committee has a bias against Chinese mathematicians.
   There's been 2 cycles where several who were eligible for the FM, have not been chosen.
   These are Math breakthrough prize winners like Wei Zhang, Yun, Xu, Qinwen and not to forget Song Sun too.
   I suspect if there were several French mathematicians who were in a similar position for at least 2 cycles, one of them would have won definitively.
   Do they think they are cheating or copying or something? Lol

   The Chinese "Breakthrough Prize Winners" won the more minor New Horizons prize, not the full Breakthrough Prize.

   8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   a040
   

   Braverman gets the Abacus award.

   8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   2800
   

   School wise breakdown for any high schoolers discovering this thread and thinking about where to go to study math:
   1. Hugo Duminil Copin - another ENS Paris undergrad, 3rd Geneva PhD to ever win
   2. James Maynard- another Cambridge Math Tripos graduate, 2nd Oxford PhD to ever win
   3. June Huh - first (?) Seoul National Uni grad, one of the few (like Witten) who didn’t have an undergrad in Math, 2nd Michigan PhD to ever win (other being Smale)
   4. Maryna Viazovska - 3rd Bonn PhD to win (others being Scholze and Kontsevich), earlier degrees from Ukraine, first (?) person to win with an undergrad/masters from Kiev
   As far as I know, none of the medallists are IMO participants/winners, and none of them received undergrad in US so no Putnam either.

   What's more interesting is that 6 of the last 8 FM winners have been based in Europe.

   Country breakdown since 2018:

   Switzerland: 2.5
   UK: 2
   US: 2
   Germany: 1
   France: 0.5

   (I split HDC between France and Switzerland)

   8 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   a040
   

   3 out of 4 Fields medalists and the Abacus winner are former EMS Prize winners.

   8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   2800
   

   School wise breakdown for any high schoolers discovering this thread and thinking about where to go to study math:
   1. Hugo Duminil Copin - another ENS Paris undergrad, 3rd Geneva PhD to ever win
   2. James Maynard- another Cambridge Math Tripos graduate, 2nd Oxford PhD to ever win
   3. June Huh - first (?) Seoul National Uni grad, one of the few (like Witten) who didn’t have an undergrad in Math, 2nd Michigan PhD to ever win (other being Smale)
   4. Maryna Viazovska - 3rd Bonn PhD to win (others being Scholze and Kontsevich), earlier degrees from Ukraine, first (?) person to win with an undergrad/masters from Kiev
   As far as I know, none of the medallists are IMO participants/winners, and none of them received undergrad in US so no Putnam either.

   What's more interesting is that 6 of the last 8 FM winners have been based in Europe.
   Country breakdown since 2018:
   Switzerland: 2.5
   UK: 2
   US: 2
   Germany: 1
   France: 0.5
   (I split HDC between France and Switzerland)

   Switzerland is doing especially well when you consider recent FM winners who are currently employed there:

   2006: Werner
   2010: Smirnov
   2014: Avila
   2018: Figalli
   2022: Viazovska, Duminil-Copin

   8 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   8cef
   

   With the exception of Scholze (and perhaps Tao), none of the 21st century Fields medalists will be remembered by the end of the century. Caring about the Fields medal in 2022 is not much different (and perhaps even worse) than caring about the Oscars or the Grammys.

   By that logic, this entire thread is pointless. Humans enjoy speculating about things, especially if it pertains to an area of interest.

   I get that. But if you follow the discussions on this thread, they have a quite different subtext compared to speculations on the Super Bowl or the Oscars. It is very clear that for many people in this discussion, Fields medals signify a singular achievement that is historically significant and differs qualitatively from the achievements that are acknowledged by the Oscars for example. The gap between the historic insignificance of contemporary Fields medalists and the seriousness of this thread is quite comical.

   Football players care more about the Super Bowl than the Grammys. Actors care more about the Grammys than the Super bowl. The reason everyone cares so much here is that it is OUR super bowl.

   8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   7d6d
   

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Braverman

   Mark Braverman who won the Abacus isn't even the most prominent Mark Braverman

   8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    b9c8
    

    The one thing that was absolutely predictable is Quanta Magazine going gaga over MV with a cliche inspirational piece ("In Times of Scarcity, War and Peace, a Ukrainian Finds the Magic in Math"). You don't have to be as extreme as Grothendieck or Perelman nowadays to find the math establishment absolutely 0bnoxious.

    8 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    8b7e
    

    The one thing that was absolutely predictable is Quanta Magazine going gaga over MV with a cliche inspirational piece ("In Times of Scarcity, War and Peace, a Ukrainian Finds the Magic in Math"). You don't have to be as extreme as Grothendieck or Perelman nowadays to find the math establishment absolutely 0bnoxious.

    quanta is so cringe

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    345b
    

    Snubbing BB is like when Lurie was overlooked. Sowa would disapprove.

    8 months ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    5ffd
    

    The one thing that was absolutely predictable is Quanta Magazine going gaga over MV with a cliche inspirational piece ("In Times of Scarcity, War and Peace, a Ukrainian Finds the Magic in Math"). You don't have to be as extreme as Grothendieck or Perelman nowadays to find the math establishment absolutely 0bnoxious.

    Quanta magazine is over the top. And apparantly have a degree influence.

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    91c5
    

    Snubbing BB is like when Lurie was overlooked. Sowa would disapprove.

    no

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    5ffd
    

    Snubbing BB is like when Lurie was overlooked. Sowa would disapprove.

    no

    BB was replaced by JH. I was also surprised by that.

    Snubbing BB is like when Lurie was overlooked. Sowa would disapprove.

    I was surprised that BB did not win. He was in the same 'slot' as JH.

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    6349
    

    The one thing that was absolutely predictable is Quanta Magazine going gaga over MV with a cliche inspirational piece ("In Times of Scarcity, War and Peace, a Ukrainian Finds the Magic in Math"). You don't have to be as extreme as Grothendieck or Perelman nowadays to find the math establishment absolutely 0bnoxious.

    WAR AND PEACE

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    9939
    

    Birkar was deserving. Venkatesh on the other hand..

    This cycle was a popularity contest.
    No Thorne, no Bhatt, no Tsimerman.
    I thought 2018 was bad, and this was worse.

    How is 2018 bad? Birkar?

    8 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    345b
    

    Birkar was deserving. Venkatesh on the other hand..

    This cycle was a popularity contest.
    No Thorne, no Bhatt, no Tsimerman.
    I thought 2018 was bad, and this was worse.

    How is 2018 bad? Birkar?

    Why the Venkatesh hate (genuinely curious)?

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    a040
    

    I was surprised that BB did not win. He was in the same 'slot' as JH.

    BB would have been a deserving candidate (like many others who didn't win) but on the other hand, I'm happy that they gave a medal for work in combinatorics for once instead of the same old "high-prestige" fields.

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    8335
    

    Shinichi Mochizuki will revolutionise Mathematics.

    He is ahead of his time by 10-2p years.

    8 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »