| [15] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：[游客]visitor [2010-2-15 11:48:03] ip:74.192.22.* |
| Professor Wang -- I do appreciate that you made an effort in getting a reply to me. Let us agree to disagree.
|
|
| [14] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：hongfei [2010-2-7 12:19:13] |
（13楼的先生，不知为何，您的评论无法直接回复，就把回答贴在这里吧。）
您关于credit划分的问题是基于不存在的事实，丘先生并没有那样划分过credit。我从头到尾听过不止一遍丘先生当时和记者见面的录音，其中并没有New Yorker文章中报道的关于credit划分的内容。科学时报关于这次记者见面会和之后第一时间的独家专访报道中，也没有这样的内容，您自己可以到网上去看当时的报道。新华社的报道在这件事情上出了问题，事实是，除了记者见面会之外，在这件事上新华社并没有独家专访过丘先生（出错的具体经过和原因我都了解过了，就不具体说了）。New Yorker文章的作者Nassar随后访问北京，并没有正面采访过丘先生。Nassar当时在北京与丘先生在公开场合见面的照片满脸堆笑。在北京期间，Nassar和她的文章合作者根本就没有向任何当事人和记者核实过关于所谓credit划分的问题。
所以，简短的回答是，您提的问题本身并不存在。
恕我不再继续和您讨论此事。也许我六十会以后有时间写回忆录时，会专门写一章谈这件事。反正现在那些人也不能把丘先生怎么样，您自己愿意怎么信就怎么信吧。
|
|
| [13] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：[游客]visitor [2010-2-7 10:22:13] ip:74.192.22.* |
"建议您或许应该仔细去读一读有关的论文, 或者仔细分析一下已经存在的其他公开资料"
Do you mind providing those references or links pointing to those, or the major conclusions from those references?
Plus, you did not answer my question that "Do you seriously agree that Yau's splitting of credits in the proof of Poincare Conjecture is fair?" You do not have to tell me the reason but at least can tell me what you think, as a courtesy to a fellow researcher in the scientific community.
|
|
| [12] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：[游客]visitor [2010-2-7 5:34:58] ip:74.192.22.* |
"博主回复：但愿您有证据来confirm您的意见。
不过我能告诉您的是，我有很多直接证据证明我的意见"
All my evidences are in the article published in New Yorker. That article presents a comprehensive account of the Poincare Conjecture episode and major criticisms of Yau. Understandably Yau was very upset after the publication of that article and demanded apology. When refused, Yau threatened to suit. It has been two and half years since the lawsuit threat was made. Can you tell me how that lawsuit is going; does it even make to the court?
If you are talking about conspiracy coming from within China (especially from Beijing University), that is not what I am talking about. I have no knowledge (and no interest, either) about what was going on in China. Let us assume that a group of dirty rotten scoundrels in China were planning to destroy the reputation of Yau for their own interests. Coincidentally, other people elsewhere also criticized Yau for his words and deeds in this particular incident. Does that make all the criticisms invalid and part of a vast conspiracy, because of the existence of those dirty rotten scoundrels?
I do challenge Professor Wang to present me the evidence that the New Yorker article is downright wrong and outrageously biased against Yau with a defaming objective. Do you seriously agree that Yaus splitting of credits in the proof of Poincare Conjecture is fair? My take is that, other than Yau and people inside China, almost no one else within the Mathematical Community would give considerable share of credits to Chao and Zhu for what they did. Again, do not get me wrong -- I do think Chao and Zhu are good scholars, especially considering that in 2006, there was probably only a handful of people worldwide can understand Perelmans proof, let alone to explain the proof in a few hundred pages with great details. It places Chao and Zhu at the very top of the people who are working in the field. Chao and Zhu should be praised but when the claim is that they are the final proof-sealer for this crown jewel of mathematics, that claim will surely backfire, because, hey, people are not really blind ...
博主回复：既然您承认除了New Yorker的文章之外没有其他证据，那我就不跟您争论了。建议您或许应该仔细去读一读有关的论文，或者仔细分析一下已经存在的其他公开资料，再去做公正的判断。除了公开的资料之外，我自然有不少其他的证据。恕我不能在这里与您进行详细讨论。如果过些年有人要专门做研究，或者我自己有空闲专门讨论此事，我会提供我所了解的东西。
|
|
| [11] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：[游客]visitor [2010-2-6 10:36:10] ip:74.192.22.* |
"这表明几年前在数学界闹得惊天动地的有关Poincare猜想争议的硝烟已经逐渐散去。看到几年前有一帮人一心要将丘先生在国际和国内数学界以及公众中搞臭，其丧心病狂的程度真是令人叹为观止。非常高兴的是，他们的阴谋终于没有得逞。"
In my view, most of the criticisms of what Yau did in the Poincare Conjecture episode are fair. The article from New Yorker was well written and balanced. It is not really conspiracy, not that anyone showed who were conspiring against what.
Do not get me wrong. I agree that Yau is a great mathematician, and well deserves the Wolf Prize. But that does not mean Yau is perfect and did or said everything right.
Yau also played a major role in proving the Poincare Conjecture, since it was him who envisioned twenty plus years ago how the problem might be solved. I understand he had great hopes for his own proteges to solve the problem. But by the end of day, it is Grigori Perelman who actually did it. Yau still wanted to give some credits to his own people. Under that frustration, he said something and made certain claim which was not appropriate. Other people got upset and criticized what Yau did -- why is that wrong or why can that be called a conspiracy?
博主回复：但愿您有证据来confirm您的意见。
不过我能告诉您的是，我有很多直接证据证明我的意见。
|
|
| [10] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：[游客]wwmwwm [2010-2-5 8:32:46] ip:111.161.0.* |
北大的数学家们不爽了。
其实难分对错，这个世界不是二元的。
|
|
| [9] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：[游客]小学生 [2010-2-4 16:26:17] ip:59.173.160.* |
| 比起对肖传国教授的围攻，对邱成桐的攻击只能算毛毛雨啦。王老师的 “可怕的缄默”很可怕*-*， 不像王老师的风格。。。
|
|
| [8] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：nanofeifei [2010-2-4 8:44:54] |
| Congratulations!
|
|
| [7] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：JYH64J98Y99H [2010-2-3 21:29:49] |
| 丘若不好，就没有几个好数学家了。
|
|
| [6] 标题： |
| 发表评论人：WC101 [2010-2-3 19:27:10] |
In fact, more often than not the worest men win!
博主回复：In China, maybe. But not always. All I can say is that you may be too pessimistic.
|
|