Guessing who will get Fields medals - Some history and 2014

Previous post: 2014 Fields medalists?

This was a relatively easy task during about three decades. But it is nearly impossible now, at least if you do not belong to the “inner circle” of the current President of the International Mathematical Union. But they change at each Congress, and one can hardly hope to belong to the inner circle of all of them.

I would like to try to explain my approach to judging a particular selection of Fields medalists and to fairly efficiently guessing the winners in the past. This cannot be done without going a little bit into the history of Fields medals as it appears to a mathematician and not to a historian working with archives. I have no idea how to get to the relevant archives and even if they exist. I suspect that there is no written record of the deliberations of any Fields medal committee.

The first two Fields medals were awarded in 1936 to Lars Ahlfors and Jesse Douglas. It was the first award, and it wasn’t a big deal. It looks like that the man behind this choice was Constantin Carathéodory. I think that this was a very good choice. In my personal opinion, Lars Ahlfors is the best analyst of the previous century, and he did his most important work after the award, which is important in view of the terms of the Fields’ will. Actually, his best work was done after WWII. If not the war, it would be done earlier, but still after the award. J. Douglas solved the main problem about minimal surfaces (in the usual 3-dimensional space) at the time. He did with the bare hands things that we do now using powerful frameworks developed later. I believe that he became seriously ill soon afterward, but today I failed to find online any confirmation of this. Now I remember that I was just told about his illness. Apparently, he did not produce any significant results later. Would he continue to work on minimal surfaces, he could be forced to develop at least some of later tools.

The next two Fields medals were awarded in 1950 and since 1950 from 2 to 4 medals were awarded every 4 years. Initially the International Mathematical Union (abbreviated as IMU) was able to fund only 2 medals (despite the fact that the monetary part is negligible), but already for several decades it has enough funds for 4 medals (the direct monetary value remains to be negligible). I was told that awarding only 2 medals in 2002 turned out to be possible only after a long battle between the Committee (or rather its Chair, S.P. Novikov) and the officials of the IMU. So, I am not alone in thinking that sometimes there are no good enough candidates for 4 medals.

I apply to the current candidates the standard of golden years of both mathematics and the Fields medals. For mathematics, they are approximately 1940-1980, with some predecessors earlier and some spill-overs later. For medals, they are 1936-1986 with some spill-overs later. The whole history of the Fields medals can traced in the Proceedings of Congresses. They are interesting in many other respects too. For example, they contain a lot of very good expository papers (and many more of bad ones). It is worthwhile at least to browse them. Now they are freely available online: ICM Proceedings 1893-2010.

The presentation of work of 1954 medalists J.-P. Serre and K. Kodaira by H. Weyl is a pleasure to read. H. Weyl unequivocally tells that their mathematics is new and went into a new territory and is based on methods unknown to most of mathematicians at the time (in fact, this is still true). He even included an introduction to these methods in the published version.

The 1990 award at the Kyoto Congress was a turning point. Ludwig D. Faddeev was the Chairman of the Fields Medal Committee and the President of the IMU for the preceding 4 years. 3 out of 4 medals went to scientists significant part of whose works was directly related to his or his students’ works. The influence went in both directions: for one winner the influence went mostly from L.D. Faddeev and his pupils, for two other winners their work turned out to be very suitable for a synthesis with some ideas of L.D. Faddeev and his pupils. All these works are related to the theoretical physics. Actually, after reading the recollections of L.D. Faddeev and prefaces to his books, it is completely clear that he is a theoretical physicists at heart, despite he has some interesting mathematical results and he is formally (judging by the positions he held, for example) considered to be a mathematician.

The 1990 was the only year when one of the medals went to a physicist. Naturally, he never proved a theorem. But his papers from 1980-1994 contain a lot of mathematical content, mostly conjectures motivated by quantum field theory reasoning. There is no doubt that his ideas are highly original from the point of view of a mathematician (and much less so from the point of view of someone using Feynman’s integrals daily), that they provided mathematicians with a lot of problems to think about, and indeed resulted in quite interesting developments in mathematics. But many mathematicians, including myself, believe that the Fields medals should be awarded to outstanding mathematicians, and a mathematician should prove his or her claims. I don’t know any award in mathematics which could be awarded for conjectures only.

In 1994 one of the medals went to the son of the President of the IMU at the time. Many people think that this is far beyond any ethical norms. The President could resign from his position the moment the name of his son surfaced. Moreover, he should decline the offer of this position in 1990. It is impossible to believe that that guy did not suspect that his son will be a viable candidate in 2-3 years (if his son indeed deserved the medal). The President of IMU is the person who is able, if he or she wants, to essentially determine the winners, because the selection of the members of the Fields medal Committee is essentially in his or her hands (unless there is a insurrection in the community – but this never happened).

As a result, the system was completely destroyed in just two cycles without any changes in bylaws or procedures (since the procedures are kept in a secret, I cannot be sure about the latter). Still, some really good mathematicians got a medal. Moreover, in 2002 it looked like the system recovered. Unfortunately already in 2006 things were the same as in the 1990ies. One of the awards was outrageous on ethical grounds (completely different from 1994); the long negotiations with Grisha Perelman remind plays by Eugène Ionesco.

In the current situation I would be able to predict the winners if I would knew the composition of the committee. Since this is impossible, I will pretend that the committee is as impartial as it was in 1950-1986. This is almost (but not completely) equivalent to telling my preferences.

I would be especially happy if an impartial committee will award only 2 medals and Manjul Bhargava and Jacob Lurie will be the winners. I hope that their advisors are not on the committee. Their works look very attractive to me. I suspect that Jacob Lurie is the only mathematician working now and comparable with the giants of the golden age. But I do not have enough time to study his papers, or, rather, his books. They are just too long for everybody except people working in the same field. Usually they are hundreds pages long; his only published book (which covers only preliminaries) is almost 1000 pages long. Papers by Manjul Bhargava seem to be more accessible (definitely, they are much shorter). But I am not an expert in his field and I would need to study a lot before jumping into his papers. I do not have enough motivation for this now. An impartial committee would be reinforce my high opinion about their work and provide an additional stimulus to study them deeper. The problem is that I have no reason to expect the committee to be impartial.

Arthur Avila is very strong, or so tell me my expert friends. His field is too narrow for my taste. The main problem is that his case is bound to be political. It depends on the balance of power between, approximately, Cambridge, MA – Berkley and Rio de Janeiro – Paris. Here I had intentionally distorted the geolocation data.

The high ratings in that poll of Manjul Bhargava and Artur Avila are the examples of the “name recognition” I mentioned. I think that an article about Manjul Bhargava appeared even in the New York Times. Being a strong mathematician from a so-called developing country (it seems that the term “non-declining” would be better for English-speaking countries), Artur Avila is known much better than American or British mathematicians of the same level.

Most of mathematicians included in the poll wouldn’t be ever considered by anybody as candidates during the golden age. There would be several dozens of the same level in the same broadly defined area of mathematical. Sections of the Congress can serve as the first approximation to a good notion of an area of mathematics. And a Fields medalist was supposed to be really outstanding. Restricting myself by the poll list I prefer one of the following variants: either Bhargava, or Lurie, or both or no medals for the lack of suitable candidates.



Next post: Did J. Lurie solved any big problem?

2014 Fields medalists?

Previous post: New comments to the post "What is mathematics?"

I was asked by Tamas Gabal about possible 2014 Fields medalists listed in an online poll. I am neither ready to systematically write down my thoughts about the prizes in general and Fields medals in particular, nor to predict who will get 2014 medals. I am sure that the world would be better without any prizes, especially without Fields medals. Also, in my opinion, no more than two persons deserve 2014 Fields medals. Instead of trying to argue these points, I will quote my reply to Tamas Gabal (slightly edited).

Would I know who the members of the Fields medal committee are, I would be able to predict medalists with 99% confidence. But the composition of the committee is a secret. In the past, the situation was rather different. The composition of the committee wasn't important. When I was just a second year graduate student, I compiled a list of 10 candidates, among whom I considered 5 to have significantly higher chances (I never wrote down this partition, and the original list is lost for all practical purposes). All 4 winners were on the list. I was especially proud of predicting one of them; he was a fairly nontraditional at the time (or so I thought). I cannot do anything like this now without knowing the composition of the committee. Recent choices appear to be more or less random, with some obvious exceptions (like Grisha Perelman).

Somewhat later I wrote:

In the meantime I looked at the current results of that poll. Look like the preferences of the public are determined by the same mechanism as the preferences for movie actors and actresses: the name recognition.

Tamas Gabal replied:

Sowa, when you were a graduate student and made that list of possible winners, did you not rely on name recognition at least partially? Were you familiar with their work? That would be pretty impressive for a graduate student, since T. Gowers basically admitted that he was not really familiar with the work of Fields medalists in 2010, while he was a member of the committee. I wonder if anyone can honestly compare the depth of the work of all these candidates? The committee will seek an opinion of senior people in each area (again, based on name recognition, positions, etc.) and will be influenced by whoever makes the best case... It's not an easy job for sure.

Here is my reply.

Good question. In order to put a name on a list, one has to know this name, i.e. recognize it. But I knew much more than 10 names. Actually, this is one of the topics I wanted to write about sometime in details. The whole atmosphere at that time was completely different from what I see around now. May be the place also played some role, but I doubt that its role was decisive. Most of the people around me liked to talk about mathematics, and not only about what they were doing. When some guy in Japan claimed that he proved the Riemann hypothesis, I knew about this the same week. Note that the internet was still in the future, as were e-mails. I had a feeling that I know about everything important going on in mathematics. I always had a little bit more curiosity than others, so I knew also about fields fairly remote from own work.

I do not remember all 10 names on my list (I remember about 7), but 4 winners were included. It was quite easy to guess 3 of them. Everybody would agree that they were the main contenders. I am really proud about guessing the 4th one. Nobody around was talking about him or even mentioned him, and his field is quite far from my own interests. To what extent I understood their work? I studied some work of one winner, knew the statements and had some idea about their proof for another one (later the work of both of them influenced a lot my own work, but mostly indirectly), and very well knew what are the achievements of the third one, why they are important, etc. I knew more or less just the statements of two main results of the 4th one, the one who was difficult to guess – for me. I was able to explain why this or that guy got the medal even to a theoretical physicist (actually did on one occasion). But I wasn’t able to teach a topic course about works of any of the 4.

At the time I never heard any complaints that a medal went to a wrong person. The same about all older awards. There was always a consensus in the mathematical community than all the people who got the medal deserved it. May be somebody else also deserved it too, but there are only 3 or 4 of them each time.

Mathematics is a human activity. This is one of the facts that T. Gowers prefers to ignore. Nobody verifies proofs line by line. Initially, you trust your guts feelings. If you need to use a theorem, you will be forced to study the proof and understand its main ideas. The same is true about the deepness of a result. You do not need to know all the proofs in order to write down a list like my list of 10 most likely winners (next time my list consisted of no more than 5 or 6, all winner were included). It seems that I knew the work of all guessed winners better than Gowers knew the work of 2010 medalists. But even if not, there is a huge difference between a graduate student trying to guess the current year winners, and a Fellow of the London Royal Society, a Fields medalist himself, who is deciding who will get 2010 medals. He should know more.

The job is surely not an easy one now, when it is all about politics. Otherwise it would be very pleasant.

Next post: Guessing who will get Fields medals - Some history and 2014.

Reply to a comment

Previous post: Freedom of speech in mathematics

This is a reply to a recent comment by an Anonymous.

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you very much for reading these notes and for writing a serious and stimulating comment. I was thinking about it for a few days, and I am still not sure that my reply will be convincing. But let me try.

The initial goal of this blog was to provide a context for my arguments in Gowers's blog and in another blog. The latter was quoted by another anonymous in Gowers’s blog, and I had no other choice as to try to explain them (the original comment was addressed to people who know me and my views fairly well). So, the concentration on Gowers's views and activities was only natural; this was the intention. Now this topic is more or less exhausted, and expanding the scope of the blog, or even changing it completely may be in order.

Gowers himself described his goals and said that achieving them will eliminate mathematics as we know it. There is nothing apocalyptic in my discussion of his ideas. I do not anticipate that he or his followers will achieve his goals. I do not think that humans are some sort of computers, and I do not think that computers can do real mathematics (definitely, they can do a lot of mathematical things better than humans, but only when a class of problems was completely understood by humans). But he may achieve his goal in an Orwellian way by changing the meaning of the word “mathematics”. He already shifted the preferences of a big part of mathematical community. It took about ten years. If he will be able to do a comparable feat in the next ten years, and then, may be with his followers, once more, “mathematics” will mean “Hungarian-style combinatorics”. And I do believe that the Hungarian-style combinatorics is a field where computers eventually will be superior to humans because a nearly exhaustive search for a proof will be more efficient than human insights (like it happened with chess, which is actually a branch of combinatorics).

Independently of this scenario, I believe that having a person intended to eliminate mathematics (even if his goal is not achievable) in position of such influence as Gowers is extremely unhealthy and dangerous.

I agree that an “open and critical analysis of very influential individuals or groups in the mathematics research community” is highly desirable. But I am not quite comfortable with the way you wrote about this: “what the discussion should be about”. First of all, I am not comfortable with writing this either, but this is my blog and I write about whatever I like and whenever I like. Perhaps, you meant to apply “should” not to me, but to the mathematical community itself. I will assume that this is what you meant.

I believe that such a discussion is hardly possible. As a rule, mathematicians strongly dislike to openly discuss any contentious issues. One may see this everywhere: from insignificant issues on a department of mathematics to major decision made by the AMS or Fields Medals Committee, for example. I would suggest these posts for publication in the Notices of the AMS (under my real name) if I would believe that there is some chance for them to be published.

To Editors of the Notices of the AMS: this is a challenge. Prove that I am wrong!

Anyhow, I am willing to participate in such an open discussion. There is no venue for this now. Still, I would be glad to expand this blog into such a venue. For example, it may be easily transformed into a collective blog, and, for example, you will be able to post here. You will need only a Google account for this, and I will need to know the name of the account and some way of verification that it belongs to the Anonymous who wrote the comment. I reserve the right to be the owner of the blog and its moderator (right now it is not moderated, comments appear without my approval). And, may be, I will eventually transfer it to somebody else.

Finally, I disagree that mathematics was “long dominated by geometry, topology, arithmetic geometry, etc.” By some reason the word “geometry” is very popular for a few decades, and topology is usually considered to be a branch of geometry. So, the word “geometry” was appended to almost any good mathematical theory. Say, Non-Commutative Geometry is actually a branch of functional analysis. Arithmetic Geometry is a branch of algebraic number theory. Topology is not a branch of geometry in the classical sense of the word “geometry”. Algebraic Topology is a branch of algebra. Well, I realize that this is a sort of scandalous statement. It took me many years to come to this conclusion. There was a subfield of topology called Geometric Topology (it is hardly alive by now); this would be a nonsense would topology be indeed a branch of geometry.

So, in my opinion mathematics was long dominated by good mathematics, but this is not the case anymore.


Next post: Happy New Year!

The interest in big questions about mathematics in different communities

Previous post: William Thurston about the humanity and mathematics


Reply to the (first) comment to the pervious post.

Even if there is such a phenomenon as a tendency of some ethnic groups to speculate about the larger place of mathematics, it is unlikely to be either Russian or Slavic phenomenon. The word "Russian" usually used in the USA to designate anybody or anything coming from Russia or the (former) USSR. Most of "Russians" in the USA and other Western countries are, in fact, of Jewish extraction (usually not practicing any religion, including Judaism), and therefore are neither "Russians" in the USSR sense (this one is purely ethnical), nor Slavic. May be “European” would be more correct, but this would eliminate the very appealing reference to “the mysterious Russian (or Slavic) soul”.

Some of the most important writings about mathematics and its role for the humanity due to H. Poincaré (French), F. Klein (German), N. Bourbaki (French, or French-Jewish if we turn to the ethnicity), A. Weil (French, ethnically Jewish, and deeply influenced by Bhagavad Gita and related philosophy), just to give the most prominent examples. I quoted A. Weil a lot in the first posts in this blog. I believe that these examples alone are sufficient to dispel any myths about “the mysterious Russian/Slavic soul” at least in this question.

It seems to me that the opposition of the American and the European cultures is more relevant. Americans are much more focused on “practical” things of immediate importance. I mean very immediate: say, having a grant is more important than proving good theorems. This is not specific for mathematics and shows up everywhere, from arts to Hollywood to highways repairs. Naturally, “Russian” mathematicians transplanted to the US soil stand out. So would be French mathematicians, but there is virtually none of them in the US.

The late William Thurston was an example of an American mathematician paying attention to the larger issues. But he was too exceptional (even his education was rather unusual; one can read in Wiki about the undergraduate school he attended) to serve as an example.

Much more typical is a comment I once come across in T. Tao’s blog. This was an advice to young mathematicians: do not try to understand big general theories; use them as black boxes to solve specific narrow problems (and then soon you will have publications, grants, etc. – Owl). This was a big shock for me despite I knew personally people working in this manner. This approach, in particular, makes American mathematical literature less reliable than, say, the French one. The Soviet/Russian mathematical literature is also not very reliable sometimes, but by different reasons: some people write for their close friends only (but expect and usually get a universal recognition).

Perhaps, it is worthwhile to find this comment and write more extensively about it.

Another manifestation of the American attitude is the fact that general (especially partially philosophical) questions are regularly closed at Mathoverflow.

I agree that the n-categories are one of the most interesting things happening in mathematics now, perhaps the most interesting. But with the current pace of the development, they are still decades away from recognition by the whole mathematical community (if it will survive).


P.S. The title and the tags are slightly modified on March 13, 2013 in order to avoid at least some spam.


Next post: Who writes about big questions?

William Thurston about the humanity and mathematics

Previous post: William P. Thurston, 1946-2012

To my regret, I found the included below short essay by Thurston at Mathoverflow only today. It is quite remarkable, presenting some not quite conventional ideas in a brilliant and succinct form. I do not think that many mathematicians will (be able to) argue that these ideas are wrong; they usually do not think about such matters at all. A young mathematician is usually so concentrated on technical work, proving theorems, publishing them, etc. that there is no time to think about if all this is valuable for the humanity, and if it is valuable, then why. Later on she or he is either still preoccupied with writing papers, despite the creative power had significantly diminished (there is at least a couple of ways to deal with this problem), or turns to a semi-administrative or purely administrative career and seeks the political influence and power.

I started to think about these questions long ago (my interest in semi-philosophical questions goes back to high school and owes a lot to a remarkable high school teacher) and eventually have come to essentially the same conclusions as Thurston. But I was unable to put them in writing with such clarity as Thurston did.

Bill Thurston's answer to the question "What can one contribute to mathematics?" October 30, 2010 at 2:55.

It's not mathematics that you need to contribute to. It's deeper than that: how might you contribute to humanity, and even deeper, to the well-being of the world, by pursuing mathematics? Such a question is not possible to answer in a purely intellectual way, because the effects of our actions go far beyond our understanding. We are deeply social and deeply instinctual animals, so much that our well-being depends on many things we do that are hard to explain in an intellectual way. That is why you do well to follow your heart and your passion. Bare reason is likely to lead you astray. None of us are smart and wise enough to figure it out intellectually.

The product of mathematics is clarity and understanding. Not theorems, by themselves. Is there, for example any real reason that even such famous results as Fermat's Last Theorem, or the Poincaré conjecture, really matter? Their real importance is not in their specific statements, but their role in challenging our understanding, presenting challenges that led to mathematical developments that increased our understanding.

The world does not suffer from an oversupply of clarity and understanding (to put it mildly). How and whether specific mathematics might lead to improving the world (whatever that means) is usually impossible to tease out, but mathematics collectively is extremely important.

I think of mathematics as having a large component of psychology, because of its strong dependence on human minds. Dehumanized mathematics would be more like computer code, which is very different. Mathematical ideas, even simple ideas, are often hard to transplant from mind to mind. There are many ideas in mathematics that may be hard to get, but are easy once you get them. Because of this, mathematical understanding does not expand in a monotone direction. Our understanding frequently deteriorates as well. There are several obvious mechanisms of decay. The experts in a subject retire and die, or simply move on to other subjects and forget. Mathematics is commonly explained and recorded in symbolic and concrete forms that are easy to communicate, rather than in conceptual forms that are easy to understand once communicated. Translation in the direction conceptual -> concrete and symbolic is much easier than translation in the reverse direction, and symbolic forms often replaces the conceptual forms of understanding. And mathematical conventions and taken-for-granted knowledge change, so older texts may become hard to understand.

In short, mathematics only exists in a living community of mathematicians that spreads understanding and breaths life into ideas both old and new. The real satisfaction from mathematics is in learning from others and sharing with others. All of us have clear understanding of a few things and murky concepts of many more. There is no way to run out of ideas in need of clarification. The question of who is the first person to ever set foot on some square meter of land is really secondary. Revolutionary change does matter, but revolutions are few, and they are not self-sustaining --- they depend very heavily on the community of mathematicians.

(Note that this short essay is quite relevant to the discussion of T. Gowers in this blog.)

Next post: To appear

T. Gowers about replacing mathematicians by computers. 2

Previous post: T. Gowers about replacing mathematicians by computers. 1.


As we do know too well by now, not all scientific or technological progress is unqualifiedly beneficial for the humanity. As one of the results of scientific research the humanity now has the ability to exterminate not only all humans, but also all the life on Earth. Dealing with this problem determined to a big extent the direction of development of western countries since shortly after WWII. There are not so dramatic examples also; a scientific research about humans may damage only minor part of the population, or even just the subjects of this research (during the last decades, such a research is carefully monitored in order to avoid any harm to the subjects).

Gowers’s project is an experiment on humans. I believe that replacing mathematicians by computers will do a lot of harm at least to the people who could find their joy and the meaning of life in doing mathematics. But the results, if the project succeeds, are not predictable. If we agree, together with André Weil, that mathematics is an indispensable part of our culture, then it hardly possible to predict what will happen without it.


There is also question if Gowers’s goal is achievable at all. He limited it in at least two significant respects. First, he would be satisfied even if computer will not surpass humans (as opposed to the designers of “Deep Blue”, who wanted and managed to surpass the best chess players). Second, he always speaks about proving theorems, and never about discovering analogies, introducing new definitions, etc. These aspects are the most important part of mathematics, not the theorems (compare the already quoted maxim by Manin). But only theorems matter in the Hungarian-style mathematics. Perhaps, this is the reason why Gowers never mentions these aspects of mathematics. It is hard to tell if this limited goal can be achieved. Given a statement, a computer definitely able sometimes to find a proof of it (or disprove it) by a sufficiently exhaustive search. If it is not able to give an answer, the problem remains open, exactly as in human mathematics. What kind of statements a computer will be able to deal with, is another question.

Some of the best problems are not a true-false type of questions. For example, the problem of defining a “good” cohomology theory for algebraic varieties over finite fields (to a big extent solved by Grothendieck), or the problem of defining higher algebraic K-functors (solved by Quillen). It is impossible for me to imagine a computer capable to invent new definitions or suggest problems based on vague analogies like these two problems, responsible for perhaps a half of really good mathematics after 1950.


It seems that I could feel safe: even in the gloomy Gowers’s future, there will be place for human mathematicians. In fact, the future theorems, stated as conjectures, always served as one of the main, or simply the main stimulus to invention of new definitions. In addition, the success of Gowers’s project will mean the end of mathematics as a profession. There will be no new mathematicians, of Serre’s level, or any other, simply because there will be no way to earn a living by doing human mathematics.

Next post: The twist ending. 1

T. Gowers about replacing mathematicians by computers. 1

Previous post: The Politics of Timothy Gowers. 3.


Starting with his “GAFA Visions” essay, T. Gowers promotes the idea that it is possible and desirable to design computers capable of proving theorems at a very high level, although he will be satisfied if such computers still will be not able to perform at the level of the very best mathematician, for example, at the level of Serre or Milnor. I attempted to discuss this topic with him in the comments to his post about this year Abel prize.

I had no plans for such a discussion, and the topic wasn’t selected by me. I made a spontaneous comment in another blog, which was a reaction to a reaction to a post about E. Szemerédi being awarded this year Abel prize. But I stated my position with many details in Gowers’s blog. T. Gowers replied to only three of my comments, and only partially. It seems that for many people it is hard to believe that a mathematician of the stature of T. Gowers may be interested in eliminating mathematics as a human activity, and this is why my comments in that blog made their way to Gowers’s one (one can find links in the latter).

For Gowers, the goal of designing computers capable of replacing mathematicians is fascinating by itself. Adding some details to his motivation, he claims that such computers cannot be designed without deep understanding of how humans prove theorems. He will not consider his goal achieved if the theorem-proving computer will operate in the manner of “Deep Blue” chess-playing computer, namely, by a huge and a massively parallel (like “Deep Blue”) search. Without any explanation, even after directly asked about this, he claims that in fact a computer operating in the manner of “Deep Blue” cannot be successful in proving theorems. In his opinion, such a computer should closely imitate humans (whence we will learn something about humans by designing such a computer), and that it is much simpler to imitate humans doing mathematics than other tasks.

In addition, Gowers holds the opinion that elimination of mathematics would be not a big loss, comparing it to losing many old professions to the technology.


Gowers’s position contradicts to the all the experience of the humanity. None of successful technologies imitates the way the humans act. No means of transportation imitates walking or running, for example. On the other end and closer to mathematics, no computer playing chess imitates human chess players.

Note that parallel processing (on which “Deep Blue” had heavily relied) is exactly that Gowers attempts to do with mathematics in his Polymath project. It seems that this project approaches the problem from the other end: it is an attempt to make humans to act like computers. This will definitely simplify the goal of imitating them by computers. Will they be humans after this?


Gowers’s position is a position of a scientist interested in learning how something functions and not caring about the cost; in his case not caring about the very survival of mathematics. In my opinion, this means that he is not a mathematician anymore. Of course, he proves theorems, relies on his mathematical experience in his destructive project, but these facts are uninteresting trivialities. I expect from mathematician affection toward mathematics and a desire of its continuing flourishing. (How many nominal mathematicians such a requirement will disqualify?)


Next post: T. Gowers about replacing mathematicians by computers. 2.

The Politics of Timothy Gowers. 3

Previous post: The Politics of Timothy Gowers. 2.


The preparations of Gowers to the elimination of mathematics are not limited to the elevation of the status of the most amenable to the computerization part of mathematics. T. Gowers uses other means also. His web page "Mathematical discussions” aims at developing some “more natural” ways to discover key mathematical ideas. By “more natural” Gowers apparently means “not requiring a sudden insight”. Some titles of his mini-articles are very telling. A good example is “How to solve basic analysis exercises without thinking.” To do mathematics without thinking is exactly what is needed for replacing mathematicians by computers. I consider this project as a failed one: no real way to discover key ideas without insight, not to say without thinking, is even hinted at in these notes. One of approaches used by Gowers is to reverse the history and shows how to use more recent ideas to discover the older ones, like in his note about the zeta-function. Euler’s and Riemann’s work on the zeta-function stimulated a lot of developments in analysis, and to use these developments to rediscover the main result of Euler looks like cheating. In other cases, like in his note about cubic equations, Gowers more or less rediscovers the original approaches. His approach to the cubic equations is very close to the one presented in every book about Galois theory paying some attention to the history.

My favorite part of this page is entitled "Topology”. It consists of only one phrase: "Watch this space”. This did not change at least since April 18, 2001 (according to the web archive). So, I am watching this space for more than a decade. Topology is the quintessential “first culture” mainstream mathematics, mathematics of Serre and Milnor. Completely missing, even without such a phrase, is algebraic geometry. It seems that the two most important developments in the twenties century mathematics are not amenable even to an attempt to eliminate or at least reduce the roles of insights and thinking.

The posts under the tag ‘Demystifying proofs’ in Gowers blog have the same goal and overlap with his “Mathematical discussions”.


Another project Gowers is actively promoting is called the “Polymath”. See posts in his blog under tags like “polymath”,  “polymath1”,  etc. Perhaps, the best place to start is the posts “Is massively collaborative mathematics possible?” and “Background to a polymath project”. The idea is, apparently, to prove theorems not by the usual process of an individual discovery or close interaction of few mathematicians, but by a massively parallel working of many mathematicians interacting on a special web site. This immediately brings to the memory famous computer “Deep Blue”, who won (at the second attempt) a chess match with Garry Kasparov, perhaps the best chess player of all times. “Deep Blue” relied on massively parallel computation, combined with the chess players’ insights (it turned out that without substantial help from human chess players the computer cannot beat Kasparov). Gowers attempt to arrange something similar but using only humans. This is, clearly, could be a good step toward replacing human mathematicians by computers, if successful.

To the best of my knowledge, the first attempt was somewhat successful, in the sense that it resulted in a published paper. But the result proved was not surprising at all, and the main contributions to the proof were made by very few mathematicians (perhaps, no more than three). The result was certainly accessible to a good mathematician working alone.

Much more can be found at “The polymath blog” and the Polymath1wiki (a Wiki-like site). Amazingly, 1/3 of the described there nine “Polymath projects” are devoted to solving specific problems from International Mathematical Olympiads. As is well known, a sufficiently bright and trained high school student can solve such problem in one-two hours.

So, it seems that the idea failed.

(It is worth to note that the domain name michaelnielsen.org, a subdomain of which is the Polymath1wiki, belongs to Michael Nielsen, who presents himself as “a writer, scientist, and programmer”. Perhaps, he is neither a writer, nor a scientist, nor a programmer, if these notions are understood in a sufficiently narrow sense. But we are not living at the times of André Weil, and nowadays he is definitely all of the above. The point is that even nowadays he is not classified as a mathematician.)


I think that all this gives a good idea of what I understand by the politics of Gowers.

He is also actively involved in a battle with big publishers over the prices of scientific journals. In this case his goals are quite close to my heart (in contrast with the already discussed activities), and I even signed an inspired by Gowers declaration of non-collaboration with the infamous publisher Reed-Elsevier. Still, I believe that his approach is misguided. Elsevier may be the most evil scientific publisher, but not the only one evil, and even the university presses and learned societies act in an evil manner more often than one may expect. From my point of view, the root of the problem is in the scientific community itself, and the solution can be found also only within this community. Everything depends on the transfer of the copyright from authors to publishers. Scientists need to refuse to transfer the copyright. But this is another topic.


Next post: T. Gowers about replacing mathematicians by computers. 1

The Politics of Timothy Gowers. 2

Previous post: The Politics of Timothy Gowers. 1.


Since about 2000, T. Gowers became a prominent advocate of two ideas. First, he works on changing the mathematical public opinion about relative merits of various mathematical results and branches of mathematics in favor of his own area of expertise. Second, he advocates the elimination of mathematics as a significant human activity, and a gradual replacement of mathematicians by computers and moderately skilled professionals assisting these computers. The second goal is more remote in time; he estimates that it is at least decades or even a century away. The first goal is already partially accomplished. I believe that his work toward these two goals perfectly fits the definitions 3a, 5a, and 5b from Merriam-Webster.

I would like to point out that public opinion about various branches of mathematics changes continuously and in a manner internal to the mathematics itself. An area of mathematics may be (or may seem to be) completely exhausted; whatever is important in it, is relegated to textbooks, and a research in it wouldn’t be very valued. Somebody may prove a startling result by an unexpected new method; until the power of this method is exhausted, using it will be a very fashionable and valuable direction of research. This is just two examples.

In contrast with this, T. Gowers relies on ideological arguments, and, as one may guess, on his personal influence (note that most of the mathematical politics is done behind the closed doors and leaves no records whatsoever). In 2000, T. Gowers published two essays: “Two cultures in mathematics” in a highly popular collection of articles “Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives” (AMS, 2000), and “Rough structures and classification” in a special issue “GAFA Vision” of purely research journal “Geometric and functional analysis”.

The first essay, brilliantly written, put forward a startling thesis of the existence of two different cultures in mathematics, which I will call the mainstream and the Hungarian cultures for short. Most mathematicians are of the opinion that (pure) mathematics is a highly unified subject without any significant division in “cultures”. The mainstream culture is nothing else as the most successful part of mathematics in the century immediately preceding the publication of the “Two cultures” essay. It encompasses almost all interesting mathematics of the modern times. The Hungarian culture is a very specific and fairly elementary (this does not mean easy) sort of mathematics, having its roots in the work of Paul Erdös.

The innocently titled “GAFA Visions” essay has as it central and most accessible part a section called “Will Mathematics Exist in 2099?” It outlines a scenario eventually leading to a replacement mathematicians by computers. The section ends by the following prediction, already quoted in this blog.

"In the end, the work of the mathematician would be simply to learn how to use theorem-proving machines effectively and to find interesting applications for them. This would be a valuable skill, but would hardly be pure mathematics as we know it today.”

All arguments used to support the feasibility of this scenario are borrowed from the Hungarian culture. On the one hand, this is quite natural, because this is the area of expertise of Gowers. But then the conclusion should be “The work in the Hungarian culture would be simply to learn how to use Hungarian-theorems proving machines effectively”. This would eliminate the Hungarian culture, if it indeed exists, from mathematics, but will not eliminate pure mathematics.

This second project does not seem to be very realistic unless the mathematical community will radically change its preferences from favoring the mainstream mathematics to favoring the Hungarian one. And indeed, it seems that Gowers working simultaneously on both projects. He advocates Hungarian mathematics in his numerous lectures all over the world. He suddenly appears as the main lecturer on such occasions as the announcement of the Clay Institute million dollars prizes. It was a shock when he gave the main lecture about Milnor’s work at the occasion of the award of Abel prize to Milnor. Normally, such lectures are given by an expert in an area close to the area of the person honored. Gowers is in no way an expert in any of the numerous areas Milnor worked in. Moreover, he hardly had any understanding of the most famous results of Milnor; in fact, he consulted online (in a slightly veiled form at Mathoverflow.org) about some key aspects of this result. This public appearance is highly valuable for elevating the status of the Hungarian mathematics: a prominent representative of the last presents to the public some of the highest achievements of the mainstream mathematics.

The next year Gowers played the same role at the Abel prize award ceremony again. This time he spoke about his area of expertise: the award was given to a representative of Hungarian mathematics, namely, to E. Szemerédi. Be a presenter of a laureate work two year in a row is also highly unusual (I am not aware about any other similar case in mathematics) and is hardly possible without behind the closed doors politics. The very fact of awarding Abel prize to E. Szemerédi could be only the result of complicated political maneuvers. E. Szemerédi is a good and interesting mathematician, but not an extraordinary one. There are literally hundreds of better mathematicians. The award of the Abel prize to him is not an indicator of how good mathematician he is; it informs the mathematical community that the system of values of the mathematical establishment has changed.

How it could happen without politics that Gowers was speaking about the work of Milnor at the last year Abel prize ceremony? Gowers speaking about the work of Szemerédi is quite natural, but Gowers speaking about the work of Milnor (and preparing this presentation with the help of Mathoverflow) is quite bizarre. It is obvious that Gowers is the most qualified person in the world to speak about the works of Szemeredi, but there are thousands of mathematicians more qualified to speak about Milnor’s work.


Next post: The Politics of Timothy Gowers. 3.

The Politics of Timothy Gowers. 1

Previous post: My affair with Szemerédi-Gowers mathematics.


I mentioned in a comment in a blog that a substantial part of activity of Timothy Gowers in recent ten or more years is politics. It seems that this claim needs to be clarified. I will start with the definitions of the word “politics” in Merriam-Webster online. There are several meanings, of which the following (3a, 5a, 5b) are the most relevant.

3
a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government).

5
a : the total complex of relations between people living in society
b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view .

It seems that the interpretation of T. Gowers himself is based only on the most objectionable meaning, namely:

3
c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices.

I am not in the position to judge how artful the politics of Gowers is; its results suggest that it is highly artful. But I have no reason to suspect any dishonest practices.

With only one exception, I was (and I am) observing Gowers activities only online (this includes preprints and publications, of course). I easily admit that in this way I may get a distorted picture. But this online-visible part does exist, and this part is mostly politics of mathematics, not mathematics itself.

I do classify as politics things like “The Princeton Companion to Mathematics”, which do not look as such at the first sight. This particular book gives a fairly distorted and at some places an incorrect picture of mathematics, and this is why I consider it as politics – it is an attempt to influence both the wide mathematical public and the mathematicians in power.

I was shocked by Gowers reply to the anonym2’s comment to his post “ICM2010 — Villani laudatio” in his blog. The Gowers blog at the time of 2010 Congress clearly showed that he has almost no idea about the work of mathematicians awarded Fields medals that year. But Gowers was a member of the committee selecting the medalists. “How it could be?” asked anonym2. The reply was very short: “No comment”. This lack of a response (or should I say “this very telling response”?) and the following it explanations of T. Tao clearly showed that the work of the Fields medals committee is now a pure politics, contrary to Tao’s assertion of the opposite. If the members of the committee do not understand the work of laureates, they were not able to base their choices on the substance of the works considered, and only the politics is left. In fact, nowadays it is rather easy to guess which member of the committee was a sponsor for which medalist. This was not the case in the past, and the predictions of the mathematical community were very close to the outcome. I myself, being only a second year graduate student, not even suspecting that there is any politics involved, was able to compile a list of 10 potential Fields medalist for that year, and all four actual medalists were on the list. The question of anonym2 "How could the mathematical community be so wrong in their predictions?" could not even arise at these times.


Next post: Part 2.

The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 3

Previous post: The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 2.


Now we can hardly say that mathematics is a useless science in the sense of G.H. Hardy. It contributes to the exploitation in various ways. For example, the theory of stochastic differential equations, a highly sophisticated branch of mathematics, is essential for the financial manipulations leading to a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1% of the population. The encryption schemes, designed by mathematicians and implemented by software engineers, prevent access of the general public to all sorts of artistic and intellectual goods. This is a new phenomenon, a result of the development of the Internet.

There is no need to detail the enormous contribution of mathematics to the business of extermination; it is obvious now (this wasn’t known to the general public when A. Weil wrote his article).

Mathematicians are not as free now as they were at the times of André Weil. There are (almost?) no more non-mathematical jobs which will earn a decent livehood and will leave enough energy for mathematical research. This situation is aggravated by the fact that if someone is not employed by a sufficiently rich university, then he or she has no access to the current mathematical literature, which is mostly electronic now, and, if sold to individuals, then the prices are set to be prohibitive. The access to these electronic materials (which cost almost nothing to the publishers to produce) is protected by the above mentioned encryption tools. The industry of the scientific publishing does not have publishing as its main activity any more. Its main business now is the restricting access to scientific papers by a combination of encryption, software, and lobbying for favorable to this industry laws. The main goal pursued is the transfer of the taxpayers dollars to the pockets of its executives and shareholders (this topics deserves a separate detailed discussion).

There are no Nobel prizes in mathematics, but there are many others. The Norwegian Abel prize is specifically intended to be a “Nobel prize” in mathematics. Long before it was established (the first one was awarded in 2003), another prize, the Fields medal, achieved incredible prestige and influence in mathematics, despite the negligible monetary award associated with it. In contrast with the Nobel and Abel prizes, the Fields medal may be awarded only to “young” mathematicians. The meaning of the word “young” was initially not specified, but the mathematical establishment slowly arrived at a precise definition. Somebody is young for the purposes of awarding a Fields medal, if he did not achieved the age 41 in the year of the International Congress of Mathematicians, at which the medal is to be awarded. The Congresses are hold every 4 years (only World War II caused an interruption). So, the persons born in the year of a Congress have additional 4 year to work and to have their work recognized.

Even if this stupid rule would be discarded, the age limitation tends to reward fast people strong at applying existing methods to famous problems. The Fields medals (and many other prizes in mathematics) are usually awarded to the mathematician who made the last step in a solution of a problem, and only rarely to the one who discovered a new method or new line of thought. There are only little chances for “slow maturing work” to be rewarded by this most prestigious award (more prestigious by an order of magnitude than any other prize, except, may be, the Abel prize, which is up to now was awarded almost exclusively to the people of the retirement age).

It was possible to ignore all the prizes in 1948. The Fields medals were awarded only once, in 1936, to two mathematicians. Other prizes, where they existed, did not carry any serious prestige. But in 1950, 1954, and 1958 Fields medals went to exceptionally brilliant mathematicians, and since then this was a prize coveted by anybody who thought that there is a chance to get it.

Now there are many other prizes, each one striving to carry as much weight and influence as possible. An interesting example is the story of the Salem prize. The Salem prize was established by the widow of Raphaël Salem in order to encourage work in Salem's field of interest, primarily the theory of Fourier series. Note that Fourier series and their versions are used throughout almost whole mathematics; it is only natural to think that the prize was intended to mathematicians working on problems really close to Salem’s interests. The international committee (occasionally changing by an unknown to the public mechanism) gradually increased the scope of the prize. By 1991 no connection with Salem’s interests could be observed. Now it is the most prestigious prize for young analysts without any restrictions (and the analysis is understood in a very broad sense).

In fact, this change (as also a suspected preference for mathematicians belonging to one or two particular schools) was not welcomed by Salem’s family, and it withdraw the funding for the prize. The committee did not inform the mathematical public about these events and continued to award the prize with $0.00 attached. I am not aware of the current situation; may be the committee managed to raise some money. (Please, note that I cannot name my sources, as it is often the case in the news reporting, and hence cannot provide any proof. I can only vouch that my sources are reliable and well informed.)

The negligible monetary value of most mathematical prizes is not of any importance. The prestige is immediately transformed into the salary rises, offers from rich universities capable of doubling the salary, etc. The lifetime income could be increased by a much bigger amount than the monetary value of a Nobel Prize.

These are the signs of the lost innocence directly related to the article of André Weil. There are many other signs, and one can talk about them indefinitely. In any case, there are no more ivory towers for mathematicians; their jobs depend on many complicated and not always natural implicit agreements in the society, various laws and regulations detailing the laws, etc. From 1945 till about 1985 all these agreements and laws worked very favorably for mathematics. But, as it turned out, the same laws and understandings could be easily used to control mathematicians, sometimes directly, sometimes in hardly discernible ways, and the same arguments that were used to increase the number of jobs 60 or 50 years ago, could, in principle, be used to eliminate these jobs completely.


Next post: My affair with Szemerédi-Gowers mathematics.

The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 2

Previous post: The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 1.


Different people hold different views about the future of humankind, even about the next few decades. No matter what position is taken, it is not difficult to understand the concerns about the future of the human race in 1948. They are still legitimate today.

It seems to me that today we have much more evidence that we may be witnessing an eclipse of our civilization than we had in 1948. While the memories of two World Wars apparently faded, these wars are still parts of the modern history. The following decades brought to the light many other hardly encouraging phenomena. Perhaps, the highest point of our civilization occured on July 20, 1969, the day of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. While the Apollo 11 mission was almost purely symbolic, it is quite disheartening to know that nobody can reproduce this achievement today or in a near future. In fact, the US are now not able to put humans even on a low orbit and have to rely on Russian rockets. This does not mean that Russia went far ahead of the US; it means only that Russians preserved the old technologies better than Americans. Apparently, most of western countries do not believe in the technological progress anymore, and are much more willing to speak about restraining it, in contrast with the hopes of previous generations. Approximately during the same period most of arts went into a decline. This should be obvious to anybody who visited a large museum having expositions of both classical and modern arts. In particular, if one goes from expositions devoted to the classical arts to the ones representing more and more modern arts, the less people one will see, until reaching totally empty halls. It is the same in the New York Museum of Modern Art and the Centre Pompidou in Paris.

Mathematics is largely an art. It is a science in the sense that mathematicians are seeking truths about some things existing independently of them (almost all mathematician feel that they do not invent anything, they do discover; philosophers often disagree). It is an art in the sense that mathematician are guided mainly by esthetic criteria in choosing what is worthwhile to do. Mathematical results have to be beautiful. As G.H. Hardy said, there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics. In view of this, the lesson of the art history are quite relevant for mathematicians.


How Timothy Gowers sees the future of mathematics? He outlined his vision in an innocently entitled paper “Rough structure and classification” in a special issue “Visions in Mathematics” of “Geometric and Functional Analysis”, one of the best mathematical journals (see Geom. Funct. Anal. 2000, Special Volume, Part I, 79–117). Section 2 of this paper is entitled “Will mathematics exists in 2099?” and outlines a scenario of gradual transfer of the work of mathematicians to computers. He ends this section by the following passage.

“In the end, the work of the mathematician would be simply to learn how to use theorem-proving machines effectively and to find interesting applications for them. This would be a valuable skill, but it would hardly be pure mathematics as we know it today.”

Surely, this will be not mathematics. This prognosis of T. Gowers is even gloomier than the one which was unthinkable to A. Weil. The destiny of mathematics, as seen by Gowers, is not to be just a technique in the service of other techniques; its fate is non-existence. The service to other techniques will be provided by computers, watched over by moderately skilled professionals.

We see that nowadays even mathematicians of his very high stature do not consider mathematics as necessary, and ready to sacrifice it for rather unclear goals (more about his motivation will be in the following posts). Definitely, an elimination of mathematics as a human activity will not improve the conditions of human life. It will not lead to new applications of mathematics, because for applications mathematics is not needed at all. Mathematics is distinguished from all activities relaying on it by the requirement to provide proofs of the claimed results. But proofs are not needed for any applications; heuristic arguments supported by an experiment are convincing enough. André Weil and, in fact, most of mathematicians till recently considered mathematics as an irreplaceable part of our culture. If mathematics is eliminated, then a completely different sort of human society will emerge. It is far from being clear even that the civilization will survive. But even if it will, are we going to like it?

This is the main difference between the times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. In 1948 at least mathematicians cared about the future of mathematics, in 2012 one of the most influential mathematicians declares that he does not care much about the very existence of mathematics. Timothy Gowers is not the only mathematician with such views; but nobody of his stature in the mathematical community expressed them so frankly and clearly. He is a very good writer.


Next post: The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 3.

The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 1

Previous post: A reply to some remarks by André Joyal.


This is the first in a series of posts prompted by the award of 2012 Abel Prize to E. Szemerédi. He is, perhaps, the most prominent representative of what is often called the Hungarian style combinatorics or the Hungarian style mathematics and what until quite recently never commanded a high respect among mainstream mathematicians. At the end of the previous millennium, Timothy Gowers, a highly respected member of the mathematical community, and one of the top members of the mathematical establishment, started to advance simultaneously two ideas. The first idea is that mathematics is divided into two cultures: the mainstream conceptual mathematics and the second culture, which is, apparently, more or less the same as the Hungarian style combinatorics; while these two styles of doing mathematics are different, there is a lot parallels between them, and they should be treated as equals. This is in a sharp contrast with the mainstream point of view, according to which the conceptual mathematics is incomparably deeper, and Hungarian combinatorics consists mostly of elementary manipulations with elementary objects. Here “elementary” means “of low level of abstraction”, and not “easy to find or follow. The second idea of Gowers is to emulate the work of a mathematician by a computer and, as a result, replace mathematicians by computers and essentially eliminate mathematics. In fact, these two ideas cannot be completely separated.

In order to put these issues in a perspective, I will start with several quotes from André Weil, one of the very best mathematicians of the last century. Perhaps, he is one of the two best, the other one being Alexander Grothendieck. In 1948 André Weil published in French a remarkable paper entitled “L’Avenier des mathémathiques”. Very soon it was translated in the American Mathematical Monthly as “The Future of Mathematics” (see V. 57, No. 5 (1950), 295-306). I slightly edited this translation using the original French text at the places where the translation appeared to be not quite clear (I don’t know if it was clear in 1950).

A. Weil starts with few remarks about the future of our civilization in general, and then turns to the mathematics and its future.

“Our faith in progress, our belief in the future of our civilization are no longer as strong; they have been too rudely shaken by brutal shocks. To us, it hardly seems legitimate to “extrapolate” from the past and present to the future, a Poincaré did not hesitate to do. If the mathematician is asked to express himself as to the future of his science, he has a right to raise the preliminary question: what king of future is mankind preparing for itself? Are our modes of thought, fruits of the sustained efforts of the last four or five millennia, anything more than a vanishing flash? If, unwilling to stumble into metaphysics, one should prefer to remain on the hardly more solid ground of history, the same question reappear, although in different guise, are we witnessing the beginning of a new eclipse of civilization. Rather than to abandon ourselves to the selfish joys of creative work, is it not our duty to put the essential elements of our culture in order, for the mere purpose of preserving it, so that at the dawn of a new Renaissance, our descendants may one day find them intact?”

“Mathematics, as we know it, appears to us as one of the necessary forms of our thought. True, the archaeologist and the historian have shown us civilizations from which mathematics was absent. Without Greeks, it is doubtful whether mathematics would ever have become more than a technique, at the service of other techniques; and it is possible that, under our very eyes, a type of human society is being evolved in which mathematics will be nothing but that. But for us, whose shoulders sag under the weight of the heritage of Greek thought and walk in path traced out by the heroes of the Renaissance, a civilization without mathematics is unthinkable. Like the parallel postulate, the postulate that mathematics will survive has been stripped of its “obviousness”; but, while the former is no longer necessary, we couldn't do without the latter.”

““Mathematics”, said G.H. Hardy in a famous inaugural lecture “is a useless science. By this I mean that it can contribute directly neither to the exploitation of our fellowmen, nor to their extermination.

It is certain that few men of our times are as completely free as the mathematician in the exercise of their intellectual activity. ... Pencil and paper is all the mathematician needs; he can even sometimes get along without these. Neither are there Nobel prizes to tempt him away from slowly maturing work, towards brilliant but ephemeral result.”

One of the salient points made by A. Weil in this essay (and other places) is the fragility of mathematics, its very existence being a result of historical accident, namely of the interest of some ancient Greeks in a particular kind of questions and, more importantly, in a particular kind of arguments. Already in 1950 we could not take for granted the continuing existence of mathematics; it seems that the future of mathematics is much less certain in 2012 than it was in 1950.


Next post: The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 2.

A reply to some remarks by André Joyal

Previous post: The first post.


I am a fairly surprised by your criticism of Bourbaki work (I would be not surprised by a critique of Bourbaki from many other mathematicians). I hardly can say anything new in the defense of Bourbaki. The best defense was, probably, provided by J. Dieudonne. And one should not forget that, as some other former member of Bourbaki pointed out, that Bourbaki books succeeded in changing the style in which books in mathematics are written. There is no more such an urgent need in rigorous and systematic expositions as was in France before WWII, because many books by other authors are both rigorous and systematic.

Of course, applications are absent from Bourbaki books, as they are absent from almost all books in pure mathematics. I doubt that I ever read or used any book in pure mathematics discussing applications. And since I think that pure mathematics is not needed for any applications, I believe that it is better to separate them.

The issue of the presumed absence of motivation in Bourbaki books is more subtle. There are several sorts of motivations. A reference to applications is a common but very poor motivation to study proofs, because only statements and formulas are needed for applications. It seems that the most widespread sort of motivation is a pseudo-historical one: one invents some way how mathematicians could in principle arrive at a result or definition; in the best cases it resembles the actual history. Very often such a motivation uses tools developed only later and, moreover, under the influence of the original discovery. I consider such motivations as very misleading. The only true motivation in mathematics is the real history of the problem or of the theory at hand. I learned this point of view from my Ph.D. thesis adviser in the context of writing introductions to research papers, and later I saw that it applies to expository writings, textbooks, everywhere. Using it in the teaching or learning is possible, but by purely practical reasons only occasionally. This approach requires such amount of time that it will defer own research by decades. Another effective form of motivation is apparently already forgotten in the western countries. It is simply the trust to a more experienced person than you. If you are told that you will need to know the derived categories or it just worth to know about them, this should be a sufficient motivation and you will study the theory of derived categories. Finally, the organization of the material could be self-motivating. I think that Bourbaki books are superb in this respect. They are, in fact, much more readable than most of mathematicians think. Many other books are also self-motivating without any special efforts.


Next post: The times of André Weil and the times of Timothy Gowers. 1.