GS Chandy
Posts:
7,057
From:
Hyderabad, Mumbai/Bangalore, India
Registered:
9/29/05


Re: hilbert's third problem
Posted:
Aug 10, 2013 1:33 AM


Wayne Bishop had posted the following remarkable comment to GSC on Aug 8, 2013 10:40 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9188769): > > With the help of OPMS, of course, you compare > favorably with > Perelman? I stand in awe! > > Wayne > (Copy of GSC's post, to which Professor Bishop had made the above ludicrous response, appears below my signature).
I had already responded (dt. Aug 9, 2013 5:23 AM at http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9189278 ) appropriately to the above posting from Professor Bishop. On reading through my response after it had appeared at Mathteach, it struck me that something further on the subject might be appropriate and useful.
By chance, I happened to find Jerry Becker's obituary notice for William P. Thurston dt. Aug 23, 2012 11:01 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2397693 ).
This obituary notice is quite relevant here as Thurston was the originator of the famous "Geometrization Conjecture" which forms a grand generalisation to the Poincare Conjecture that Perelman had resolved.
John Milnor, himself a great mathematician, stated that:
"Without the Thurston geometrization conjecture, Grisha Perelman, would not have been able in 2003 to solve the Poincaré conjecture, which asserts that the sphere is the only threedimensional shape in which every loop in its structure can be shrunk to a single point, without ripping or tearing either the loop or the space".
Here is an interesting quote from Thurston himself, commenting on what drives mathematicians: "The inner force that drives mathematicians isn't to look for applications; it is to understand the structure and inner beauty of mathematics."
I believe the above must have been as true for Perelman as it was for Thurston.
In order to respond to Professor Bishop's snide jibe, I might note that, in my opinion, William Thurston does indeed compare in the profundity and reach of his imagination to Grigori Perelman. GSC does not (and has never claimed anything of the sort).
And no, neither Thurston nor Perelman needed OPMS to create their astounding works of imagination and ideas.
The OPMS is for people like myself  who are excited by the great ideas of various disciplines (including math and science)  but who may not possess the genius of the Thurstons, the Perelmans, the Ramanujams, Feynmans, Einsteins and so on. Yet, we do wish to participate in that great thrill of discovery that must drive and animate these geniuses.
Using the OPMS, it is quite possible that we 'ordinary folk' might come to appreciate true genius (and its works) a bit better than we would without it.
It would still be a lot of hard 'mindwork' to arrive at such appreciation/understanding, but OPMS would surely help. For those who may be interested to use the OPMS to participate  at a remove  in the ideas and the works of these geniuses, some information about it is available at the attachments to my post heading the thread "Democracy: how to achieve it?"  see http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536.
I reassert my statement: "The ideas and attitudes of a true discoverer are quite 'different'". The 'meaning of the OPMS' is: it could help us all to participate in true discovery.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!") Copy of GSC's original post: > At 12:08 PM 8/7/2013, GS Chandy wrote: > >Further my last dt. Aug 4, 2013 2:14 PM > >(http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=91871 > 55), I found > >the link to a fascinating and quite insightful > article that had > >appeared in the New Yorker (suitable for the > layperson) regarding > >Grigoriy Perelman's solution of the Poincare > Conjecture: > > > >"Manifold Destiny", by Sylvia Nasar > >http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_ > fact2?currentPage=all > > > >The ideas and attitudes of a true discoverer are > quite 'different'. > > > >GSC
 End of Forwarded Message

