On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:08:58 PM UTC-5, Victor Porton wrote:
> > I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Abel prize. The Abel prize > > > is not intended to motivate and assist the winner in pursuing future > > > mathematical research, but rather it is intended to recognize already > > > existing mathematical achievement. The reasons you give argue for being > > > awarded a research grant or something like the MacArthur Fellows Program > > > (for U.S. citizens and U.S. residents only). > > > > I don't misunderstand the purpose of the Abel Prize. I just note that > > despite of having this purpose it can help other purposes too. > > > > It seems for me like that the research I've already accomplished may be > > probably enough to get the prize, but there are also directions for future > > research.
One is seldom impartial in judging the merit of one's own work.
> > I've sent my proposal to the topology section of Israel Mathematical Union > > annual meeting and was not accepted because nobody recommends me.
Or perhaps because you could not communicate effectively? I mean, if the writing I've seen from you so far is any indication, I would not accept a submission for a special session from you either, just on the basis of "huh? if this person speaks like (s)he writes, that's a wasted slot."
Look, this is pointless. Not only is the opinion of the denizens of sci.math essentially irrelevant (yes, I include myself) for things much, much lower than the Abel prize (I doubt my un-asked-for opinion would get you into a Special Session anywhere, for example, let alone award you a prize), but your reasons for claiming that you deserve the prize are at best spurious (argumentum ad misericordiam, a personal and unsubstantiated evaluation of the **likely** quality and impact of the work according to your own lights). The more you argue here, the more you prove that you lack a clue.