On Mar 10, 2:47 am, A <anonymous.rubbert...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 9:01 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.email@example.com: > > > > > > 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. > > > Tonio > > How about the Abel Prize?-
Indeed, this is imo the closest one to a Nobel in sciences.