> Arturo Magidin wrote (in part): > > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9170901 > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/t6JDaqjaJnE > >> The Abel prize has been given to people with a life-time of results >> that were not only impressive on their own, but that have had >> a lasting and deep impact on the subject. > > Perhaps it would help to give an example. > > Saharon Shelah has not won an Abel prize and he seems to fit the > above description better than Victor Porton. Let's say I want > to nominate someone. Why should I nominate Porton instead of Shelah?
For me to receive the prize is more important than for Shelah:
1. I have no scientific degree (for some subtle reasons which I am not going to explain here I've left study in university not finishing it). A prize would for me be a pass to academic circles as a replacement for a scientific degree, so that I would become allowed such things as speaking at scientific conferences. Shelah on the other hand already has a reputation and does probably not need to advance it further.
2. I've conducted some excellent research but right now I am stuck not knowing how to continue it. (Especially, I don't know how to prove the following important conjecture: the category of (proximally) continuous functions between endo-funcoids has direct products and moreover is cartesian closed.) My recognition would welcome other mathematicians to continue my work which as for now I am unable to continue myself.
3. I need to work as a programmer to have enough money. Prize money would help me to stop working for a boss and switch to that kinds of work which I myself consider more important. No such trouble with Shelah.