It is obvious that most of you have never lived for your art. Otherwise, this man would be no particular freak for your amusement and would be quite ordinary in many ways. The one question that I find interesting is, does mathematics lead one to introvert, or do introverts gravitate towards mathematics. Probably both in a spiraling positive feedback loop.
Us ET geniuses are too busy searching for a proof to the holy grail conjecture, a much harder problem than any of the above. The prize for solving the grail conjecture will be a trillion dollars in trading profits for the person who does
Ahem, even among "pure" academics, Perelman is considered quite the extreme. He even resigned his researcher position at the research institute, and is reported to now avoid mathematics in general. He never attends peer conferences, and even his papers, are just published on the web, and involves in no discussion. Compare him to his fellow Fields medal winner, Terence Tao (closest I have seen to a child prodigy I have seen), the contrast is stunning. On a diff topic, I always think of Ed Thorp, while he achieved wide fame for proving card counting provides definite player advantages, but he made far more money trading. The MIT Blackjack team, as famous as they were, only netting around $2M in profits (according to some of the books and interviews) as a whole over 4-5 yrs.
It is not uncommon. Grothendieck in his own way did the same thing. The parallels with Perelman are uncanny. I understand these people 100%, but it is hard to explain it to someone else. Take a look at a picture of Grothendieck when he was young. Seems pretty normal aye? Somehow life takes its toll on you. I agree that T Tao is a phenomenal mathematician, and appears also to be a dedicated teacher. I have nothing but the highest regards for him. Thorp is a folk hero of mine. But no offense, these guys (Grothendieck, Tao, Perelman) are immortal in the field of mathematics, especially Grothendieck.
Look at the reasons for his seclusion. He's cited on numerous occasions that the bureaucracy and politics of academic mathematics disgusted him.
Yes, because for the most part, the bureaucracy and politics is not always logical and/or mathematical. Joe.
Yeah, but it is still no reason to take it out on your self with neglect. I think that is the point. That there must be some pathos there. But the way we object is as unique as we are. It is not unlike someone going on a hunger strike.
Are you praising the ENTIRE schooling system because one man is a genious? Is positive stereotyping any better a practice than negative?