苗炜的博客

&#34;纽约客杂志上那漫画是,一个俄罗斯大胡子,挂上了菲尔茨数学奖的奖章,下面有个胖脸的中国人,去摸人家的那奖章,没准儿还想摘下来,搁在自己兜里.哎.&#34;<br />--真可笑。听苗主编这口气，好像真的***想抢人家的奖章，不知苗主编是由于无知还是心理扭曲？知道***在国际数学界是什么地位吗？他32岁就是菲尔茨得主，有人说他想几何皇帝，那又怎么样？他有这个实力！直到菲尔茨奖是授给什么人的吗？40岁以下的数学家。***早就过了年纪了，朱成喜和曹怀东也过了年纪了，***能不明白菲尔茨奖的规则吗？<br />国外媒体对华人的歧视还是有的，中国人跟着起哄，看笑话，兴高采烈，冷嘲热分，太卑劣了吧？别他妈跟我说你们站在真理一边，你们推崇的纽约客纽约时报一样谎话成篇，不过他们说谎比你们说谎高明多了。纽约客的文章抹黑的不只是***一个人，而是华人数学界，华人学术界，是所有华人，你们这些所谓知识分子也跟着叫好？***一直都肯定佩拉尔曼的成就，苗主编去看看有关的文献再说话！<br />

这个是此篇长文的完整翻译<br />http://bbs.hoopchina.com/htm_data/5/0608/120356.html<br />

the article and the picture showed that Yau wanted to steal the Fields medal from P. Hmm...that is strange.. Yau is more than 40 years old, Hamilton is more than 40 years old, Zhu is more than 40 years old (how old is Cao, anybody know?) So Yau knows perfectly well that none of them will get a Fields medalist.<br />So what kind of credit he could expect for himself? I doubt very much. Note that, the whole business of solving P conjecture is to use Ricci flow, pioneered by Hamilton and suggested by Yau. Presumably, every mathematician in the field knows this. Therefore, there is really not much for Yau to gain for himself anyway.<br />Yau is actually regarded as a &#34;nationalist in the maths community by promoting the position of Chinese mathematicians.<br />

1-看来这个Sylvia Nasar 发稿前，并没有拿稿子给文中提到的几位当事人看过、确认过，这个做法可不怎么专业 <img src=http://js.pp.sohu.com/ppp/blog/images/emotion/42.gif border=0 alt=手势-逊 title=手势-逊 ec=[//weak] /> ，如果不说得更严重的话。<br />2-本人不是搞数学的，但是以观察到的海外学术圈里的一些事儿来判断，总觉得华裔科学家似乎比较有&#8220;光宗耀祖&#8221;的意识&#8212;&#8212;比起大多数欧美同行来说，他们似乎更喜欢&#8220;学而优则仕&#8221;这样的路径或者前景，而并不只满足于探索知识本身带来的乐趣和成就感。 <br />3-这大概就好像牛顿说knowledge is power&#8212;&#8212;追求knowledge 是为了追求power&#8212;&#8212;权力。但追求权力如果不是为了更好的做事的话，恐怕就只能引向无止境的自我放大。<br />4-我不清楚&#8220;田&#8212;邱之争&#8221;争的到底是什么，但是私下认为，无论谁想要顶着&#8220;中国学术界第一把交椅&#8221;这样的名头，带班子出门操练，表面上看是要&#8220;为国争光的&#8221;，骨子里却脱不了费孝通先生所言乡土社会的&#8220;差序结构&#8221;&#8212;&#8212;&#34;以&#8220;己&#8221;为中心，象石子一般投入水中，和别人所联系成的社会关系，不象团体中的分子一般大家立在一个平面上的，而是象水的波纹一般，一圈圈推出去，愈推愈远，也愈推愈薄。......在差序格局里，公和私是相对而言的，站在任何一圈里，向内看也可以说是公的。&#34;说到底&#8220;因为我们所有的是自我主义，一切价值是以&#8220;己&#8221;作为中心的主义。&#8221;<br />5-扯远些，费孝通先生的&#8220;差序格局&#8221;似乎在很大程度上借鉴了Hume 的社会哲学(？)。再看最近提出的&#8220;发展权&#8221;论调，似乎也不过是200多年前的一些争论的延续罢了 <img src=http://js.pp.sohu.com/ppp/blog/images/emotion/25.gif border=0 alt=睡觉 title=睡觉 ec=[:Z] /> <br />

回复:谢谢您提供的信息,我会认真学习的.<br /><blockquote>搜狐网友 在上文中提到：<br />以上转载为给苗记者提供一些其他方面的信息，如果不当，抱歉了。</blockquote><br />

以上转载为给苗记者提供一些其他方面的信息，如果不当，抱歉了。<br />

Ive also had s<br />ome email correspondence with Yau on the matter over the last day. I apo<br />logized to him and expressed my anger and frustration about what was don<br />e, confirming to him the quote attributed to me is false and baseless. （<br />The email to Yau is now already posted on a Chinese blog site!）.<br />Ive learned my lesson on dealing with the media the hard and sour way a<br />nd am still considering what path to pursue to try to rectify the situat<br />ion, to the extent still possible.<br />Sincerely,<br />Mike<br />

普林斯顿大学数学系教授Joe Kohn致丘先生信件<br />Dear Yau,<br />I learned from Andreea that you were very hurt by my remarks quoted in t<br />he New Yorker. I did not mean to hurt you. You are universally recognize<br />d as one of the foremost mathematicians of our times, which explains my<br />first remark. I know how deeply you care about Chinese mathematics and t<br />herefore I assume that you would like to be as effective as possible in<br />your leadership of the Chinese mathematical community - and this explain<br />s my second remark.<br />Best regards,<br />Joe<br />

There are other inaccuracies about Stony Brook. One for instance is the<br />implication that Tian at MIT was the first to invite Perelman to the US<br />to give talks. This is of course false - we at Stony Brook were the firs<br />t to do so. I stressed in my talks with her the role Stony Brook played,<br />yet she focusses on the （single） talk Grisha gave at Princeton, listi<br />ng a collection of eminent mathematicians, none of whom is a geometer/to<br />pologist.<br />I was not given an opportunity to set the record straight with the New Y<br />orker before publication; this was partly because I was travelling in Eu<br />rope at the time this happened, and there was a rush to publish; the pub<br />lication date is the same as the announcement date of the Fields Medals<br />I think. I was not sent an advance copy of the article for checking. I s<br />poke with Sylvia on the phone this morning, to no avail. <br />

Anderson澄清Nasar对他的歪曲引用<br />Many of you have probably seen the New Yorker article by Sylvia Nasar an<br />d David Gruber on Perelman and the Poincare conjecture.<br />In many respects, its very interesting and a pleasure to read. However,<br />it contains a number of inaccuracies and downright errors.<br />I spent several hours talking with Sylvia Nasar trying to dissuade her f<br />rom incorporating the Tian-Yau fights into the article, since it was com<br />pletely irrelevant and I didnt see the point of dragging readers throug<br />h the mud.<br />Obviously I was not successful.<br />The quote attributed to me on Yau is completely inaccurate and distorted<br />from some remarks I made to her in a quite different context; I made it<br />explicit to her that the remarks I was making in that context were pure<br />ly speculative and had no basis in fact. I did not give her my permissio<br />n to quote me on this, even with the qualification of speculation.<br />

I regret very much this quote falsely attributed to me and will do what<br />ever I can to have it removed.<br />I will keep you inxxxxed as I know more.<br />Yours, Michael<br />

纽约石溪分校数学系教授Michael Anderson致丘先生信件<br />Dear Yau,<br />I am furious, and completely shocked, at what Sylvia Nasar wrote. Her qu<br />ote of me is completely wrong and baseless. There are other factual mist<br />akes in the article, in addition to those you pointed out.<br />I have left her phone and email messages this evening and hope to speak<br />to her tomorrow at the latest to clear this up. I want her to remove th<br />is statement completely from the article. It serves no purpose and contains no factual inxxxxation; I view it as stupid goss<br />ip unworthy of a paper like the New Yorker. At the moment, the print ver<br />sion has not appeared and so it might be possible to fix this still. I s<br />pent several hours with S. Nasar on the phone talking about Perelman, Po<br />incare, etc but it seems I was too naive (and Im now disgusted) in beli<br />eving this journalist would report factually.<br />

As it appears in her article, she has purposefully distorted my statement<br />and made it unforgivably misleading. Like the rest of us, Yau has his<br />faults, but, unlike most of us, his virtues outweigh his faults.<br />Unfortunately, Nasar used my statement to bolster her case<br />that the opposite is true, and for this I cannot forgive her.<br />

MIT数学系Dan Stroock教授所作的澄清<br />Clarification<br />I, like several others whom Sylvia Nasar interviewed, am shocked and ang<br />ered by the article which she and Gruber wrote for the New Yorker. Having<br />seen Yau in action during his June conference on string theory, Nasar led<br />me to believe that she was fascinated by S-T Yau and asked me my opinion<br />about his activities. I told her that I greatly admire Yaus efforts to<br />support young Chinese mathematicians and to break down the ossified<br />power structure in the Chinese academic establishment. I then told her t<br />hat I sometimes have doubts about his methodology. In particular, I told<br />her that, at least to my ears, Yau weakens his case and lays himself open<br />to his enemies by sounding too self-promoting.<br />

P君发了一个很不完整的证明，然后消失，然后别人才来做的善后工作。<br />这里有两点，<br />1。如果P君态度积极的话，根本不会有Morgan和朱的证明。数学界这点规矩还是有的,<br />Wils证Fermat定理的时候，一开始也有个错误，当时有人跟他争进度去补那个错误吗？<br />老siu当年告田刚抄袭是一个道理，别人的东西大概思路有了，没有完善，你想完善讨<br />口饭吃，那先要得到对方的同意，这是江湖规矩！所以，之所以会有Morgan和朱那么几<br />拨人在完善，完全是P君自己不想做了（别人没法联系到他，他自己也不发表什么声明<br />说自己正在完善自己的工作），所以别人才跟进的。试问自己都不想做了，别人为什么<br />不能去做？<br />2。数学这东西就是这样，不到最后严格的写下来，谁也吃不准！我和我多朋友都有这<br />个体会，自以为思路全部理清了，到了真正动笔的时候，就会出现这样那样的问题和错<br />误，结果往往无功而返。所以什么解释阿，笔记阿，统统没有用，必须要完完整整的写<br />下来才能万无一失。<br />故而能把这个东西补全绝对是功德一件！至于说占的比例，那就跟个人对数学的认识有<br />关了。有些人直觉好，一旦思路理清，写下来就是一帆风顺的，可能认为严格不是很重<br />要。有些人不到最后一刻是无法确定对错的。Yau本人的工具是分析，这东西不写下来<br />，反复的验证，很难保证对错的，所以以他的数学观说占30%的功劳，也能说的过去，<br />谈不上无耻。<br />并且朱曹的文章的前言里面根本没有抢功的意思，后来Yau自己也出来承认，国内媒体<br />歪曲了他的意思。再说，这种东西是抢就能抢得了的吗？真正的行家里手一看就能看出<br />来！<br />最近连国外的媒体也参活进来了，俄罗斯的媒体更是夸张，说什么Yau是什么anti-<br />perelman，说Yau宣称只有中国人才算懂这个。<br />想想看，Yau会糊涂到说这种话吗？这个媒体从哪儿得知这样的言论，明眼人一看就能<br />看出来！我觉得这种暗诽真的有些无耻了。<br />

苗炜英语不好是吧，找个英语好的给你解释解释纽约客的文章。当别的记者为了保护自己的消息来源而坐牢的时候，这位第一作者女士一方面有意误导来让被采访者说出她需要的话，另一方面还出卖了给她提供信息的人，而且歪曲了他们的意思，有什么好学习的！<br />

纽约客的文章写到老邱的部分很过分，甚至变态，几个被采访者都出面澄清了。现在是俄罗斯媒体都在嚷嚷老丘是凡佩尔曼的，美国媒体嚷嚷中国数学家想抢功劳，中国媒体好歹公正一些吧？老丘这个人肯定是个有缺陷的人，好大喜功，喜欢被人吹捧，想作华人数学家的盟主，但是也没有纽约客写得那么不堪。尤其是在学术上，纽约客简直是诬蔑。这也不知道是不是华人数学家内讧惹的祸。至于老邱说的百分之多少的功劳的划分，这种话无非就是信口开河侃大山的，谁没这么说过话，怎么就成了抢功劳的证据了？<br />我也算前数学家吧，早就离开了，跟这些内讧的华人数学家都有些远亲，看到这样真心痛。中国媒体再没个公道话，华人数学家的形象就这么被诋毁了。<br />

我觉得田炜倾向性和很明显。纽约客不仅是敢写，敢花钱，人家还敢把被采访人的话用到对自己有利的地方。话说回来了，就算三联敢花钱，也做不了这样的采访，那个俄罗斯人知道三联鲁伊是谁啊？纽约客的作者可是哥伦比亚的教授。<br />

http://bbs.hoopchina.com/htm_data/39/0608/119657.html<br />

1-对于新闻报道的读者来说，关注的除了事件之外，恐怕很大程度上还有人性。一个只说谁发现了什么而不能让人看到人性的报道，大概还不能算好报道&#8212;&#8212;毕竟一个抽象问题的解决与否跟绝大多数人关系并不大。从这个意义上看，new yorker 的是篇好报道。只是太长，文字也还不够elegant <img src=http://js.pp.sohu.com/ppp/blog/images/emotion/5.gif border=0 alt=调皮 title=调皮 ec=[:P] /> <br />2-《数学猜想的罗生门》写得还不错，只是题目有点怪。《罗生门》的故事我自己也拿来说过事，只是没看出来这故事跟这篇报道有什么关系？ 是说不同的人有不同的说法么？那为什么大体上只能看到中国一方面的说法呢？ <br />3-<img src=http://js.pp.sohu.com/ppp/blog/images/emotion/55.gif border=0 alt=现金 title=现金 ec=[//cash] /> <img src=http://js.pp.sohu.com/ppp/blog/images/emotion/53.gif border=0 alt=闹钟 title=闹钟 ec=[//clock] /> 当然都是问题（没准儿问题还要多）， 但是更大的问题是我们永远无法站到上帝的高度，去看到全部的真相，并以此为依据进行报道&#8212;&#8212;就算没买到西红柿总还是可以开晚饭吧 <img src=http://js.pp.sohu.com/ppp/blog/images/emotion/26.gif border=0 alt=馋 title=馋 ec=[:9] /> <br />