On Mar 9, 2:01 pm, Gerry <ge...@math.mq.edu.au> wrote: > On Mar 9, 4:31 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote: > > > Obispo de Tolosa <MathMan...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1046383277.347140.1268110066496.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org: > > > > Granville is obviously the greatest living mathematician, and perhaps > > > the only one. > > > > The late Dr. Schramm was great precisely because he did NOT receive a > > > Fields medal. > > > Cool! I never got one either! > > I was rooting for you, Bart. I couldn't believe they gave it > to that Wiles guy instead. > -- > GM
They actually didn't give it to Wiles: he only got to receive a special IMU silver plaque in 1998, because at the time the proof was finally presented with corrections and stuff, in 1994, he was over 40 years old, which is the stupid and ridiculous age limit Fields Medal have and is why, in true comparison, the Fields Medal doesn't hold a candle to the Noble Prizes.
We really need a mathematics prize comparable to the Nobel Prize in importance and projection: the Fields Medal is ONLY for a particular achievment AND under the age of 40, and not for mathematical importance/transcendence, which should be, imo, without any age restriction. Perhaps the closest one is the Wolf Prize, but still far behind the importance of a Nobel, comparatively.