Wednesday, March 2, 2011

How Being a Jerk Shortens Your Life

Angry business man yelling at phone
Tom Grill via Getty Images

By John Cloud Monday, February 28, 2011 | 768 comments

Beware jocks and mean girls: you may be more popular in high school, but according to a new academic paper, it is the smart kids and conscientious glee-club types who will live longer. Not only that, they will suffer fewer diseases before they die. Only the good die young? Guess again.

The paper, which was published recently in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, summarizes data from millions of people studied in dozens of academic articles. The bottom line is that people who are smarter and more conscientious acquire fewer illnesses and die later than those who have the opposite traits.

How these relationships work is wildly complicated, but one of the simplest associations is between intelligence and health: smarter people are more adept at avoiding accidents, and they are more likely to understand public-health campaigns against smoking or drug abuse. Studies typically show that by middle age, there is a reliable correlation between low IQ and rate of hospital admission, even when researchers control for socioeconomic differences. (More on Why Do Immigrants Live Longer Than Native-Born Americans? Smoking)

A more puzzling but just as reliable finding is that people of lower intelligence are more likely to have disorders that stem in large part from genes. For instance, the new paper quotes a 2010 finding that those who have IQ scores just one standard deviation lower than the mean have a 60% greater risk of being admitted to a hospital for schizophrenia. That could be because admitting staffs are biased against people they see as less intelligent, but low intelligence is also correlated with greater risk of alcohol problems, depression, anxiety, late-onset dementia and posttraumatic stress disorder — again, even after researchers control for class variances. The same goes for risk of death by suicide and homicide and risk of injury from fights, stabbings, or maulings with blunt instruments.

Some of these relationships can be explained simply: stupid people make stupid decisions. But no one decides to be schizophrenic or to have dementia (or, for that matter, to be mauled by a blunt instrument). The authors wonder, then, if there's a genetic relationship between intelligence and likelihood of injury and earlier-than-average death.

How would that genetic relationship work? “One possibility,” write Ian Deary, Alexander Weiss and David Batty of the University of Edinburgh, “is that intelligence might capture suboptimal neurodevelopment.” Which would mean that the less intelligent have not only more limitations on their cognitive growth but that their very brains are constructed worse, leaving them more susceptible to physiological problems such as dementia.
Still, the strong relationship between lower intelligence and higher risk for illness also exists for non-brain ailments such as cardiovascular disease. According to a 30-year Scottish study published in 2004, a one standard-deviation disadvantage in intelligence at age 11 was related to an 11% increased risk of hospital admission or death due to cardiovascular illness. The Edinburgh team says this finding coincides with data from Denmark, Sweden, and the United States. Higher intelligence is also negatively correlated with risk of stroke. (More on Why Smart Humans — and Honeybees — Live Longer)

The authors suggest the mechanism at work may be that less intelligent people have a harder time understanding the importance of physical activity, a heart-healthy diet, and avoiding cigarettes. This mechanism would explain why there is a correlation between intelligence and lung cancer but not between intelligence and most other kinds of cancers.

What about personality?

A seminal 1959 paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Type A people — hard drivers, people who face high competition and strict deadlines — are at higher risk for coronary heart disease. That finding is now so common that we take it for granted.

But it's also true that cardiac patients with Type D personalities — those who lack confidence and are prone to irritability — are at substantially greater risk for poor outcomes including death, according to a 2006 study. By contrast, patients open to experiences (art, ideas, feelings) are at lower risk for cardiac mortality.

Studies have shown for nearly 20 years that the key personality trait that predicts longevity is conscientiousness. In one long-term study, students judged by their parents and teachers to be conscientious as 12-year-olds were more likely to be alive when researchers followed up 64 years later. Surprisingly, though, the same study found that cheerfulness was related to greater mortality risk, suggesting that happy,
popular kids turn out to be at greater risk for disease later on, perhaps because they feel overly confident about their abilities to defeat life's difficulties. (More on Explaining Why Meditators May Live Longer)

High conscientiousness predicts a lower likelihood of developing all kinds of illnesses: diabetes, high blood pressure, hernia, bone problems, sciatica, stroke, Alzheimer's and tuberculosis. More conscientious HIV patients also enjoy a slower progression of their disease as indicated by viral loads, perhaps because they learn from helping others why it's important to care for themselves. As for other personality types, neurotic people tend to smoke more, as do ill-tempered people.

According to the Ediburgh team, a major flaw in these findings is that most of the studies that generated them did not adequately control for socioeconomic status (SES). Still, the authors write that the studies that did control for SES found that it “accounts for only a modest amount of the relationship between personality and health.”

Why is it that people with sunnier dispositions live longer? One reason may be that they interact more productively with health-care workers than do cynical, distrustful, or irritable people.
That's fascinating, but what are we to make of all these findings? After all, the very project of relating intelligence or personality traits to health outcomes seems a bit elitist: we smart, self-assured people unencumbered by neurotic fears are going to outlive you mean strivers. (More on Explaining Why Meditators May Live Longer)

As I was reading the careful data so attentively amassed by the Edinburgh team, I didn't think I would find any such elitism. Then I got to the final few pages. That's when the specter of eugenics crept into the discussion.

Here's one scary passage: “A patient lower in intelligence or agreeableness or who displays a distressed type of personality could have his or her cardiovascular health monitored more regularly [than those higher in intelligence or agreeableness].” Really? And who decides who is more “agreeable?” How, exactly, do we force the stupid and the mean to get these cardiovascular tests?
Here's another example:
When faced with a patient high in conscientiousness, a physician's or nurse's advice to change his or her diet or give up smoking would be likely to be met by a high self-directed effort on the part of the patient. However, for a patient low in conscientiousness, this advice may need to be accompanied with short-term incentives and regular monitoring and reminders or behavior modification either by the health-care provider or some other expert.
Wow. “Behavior modification?” “Regular monitoring” by doctors or unnamed "experts"? The authors seem to be suggesting a social-control model of dealing with people not quite as smart and optimistic as they are. People should have the right to make their own health-care decisions regardless of how smart and likable they are. Are we really going to have a separate health-care system for mean people? (More on Middle Age: It's Not Downhill from Here — At Least in Terms of Mood)

In short, let's not take this paper beyond the cocktail party. Like so many academics obsessed with intelligence scores, the Edinburgh team sounds smart but may be just creepy.

Follow my health columns on Twitter @JohnAshleyCloud

Saturday, January 29, 2011

WikiLeaks Draws FBI Ire

40 Search Warrants Executed as FBI Goes After 'Anonymous'

Police agencies worldwide are turning up the heat on a loosely organized group of WikiLeaks activists. On Thursday U.K. police arrested five people, and U.S. authorities said they'd executed more than 40 search warrants in the U.S. in connection with last month's Web-based attacks against companies that had severed ties with WikiLeaks.

Investigations are also ongoing in the Netherlands, Germany and France, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation said Thursday.

Acting on information from German authorities, the FBI raided Dallas ISP Tailor Made Services last month, looking for evidence relating to one of the chat servers used by Anonymous. Another server was traced to Fremont, California's Hurricane Electric.

The actions come after Anonymous knocked websites for MasterCard, Visa and others offline briefly by recruiting volunteers to target them with a network stress-testing tool called LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon). LOIC flooded the sites with data, making them unable to serve legitimate visitors. This type of attack is called a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack.

Anonymous has also targeted PayPal, Amazon and the websites of Sarah Palin and the Swedish Prosecutor's Office with these attacks.
"[F]acilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability," the FBI said in a press release.

Anonymous members say they want to send a message to companies that dropping WikiLeaks over its decision to publish classified documents is an attack on free speech.

These types of political DDoS attacks have become commonplace. Pro-Russia computer users used them to shut down much of Estonia's Internet infrastructure in 2007, and two years later, supporters of Iran's pro-democracy movement attacked a number of state-sponsored websites.

Anonymous has launched similar DDoS attacks in the past, too, knocking the websites of the Recording Industry Association of America and Scientology offline in recent years.

On Thursday, a Web page used to coordinate this latest round of DDoS attacks was offline, and the group's Twitter and Blogspot pages were silent.

The U.K.'s Metropolitan Police arrested five men aged 15 to 26 on Thursday. No arrests have been announced in the U.S. Last month, Dutch authorities arrested two teenagers in connection with the attacks.


Saturday, January 15, 2011

Strange Number 6174

6174 is known as Kaprekar's constant[1][2][3] after the Indian mathematician D. R. Kaprekar. This number is notable for the following property:
  1. Take any four-digit number, using at least two different digits. (Leading zeros are allowed.)
  2. Arrange the digits in ascending and then in descending order to get two four-digit numbers, adding leading zeros if necessary.
  3. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger number.
  4. Go back to step 2.
The above process, known as Kaprekar's routine, will always reach 6174 in at most 7 iterations.[4] Once 6174 is reached, the process will continue yielding 7641 – 1467 = 6174. For example, choose 3524:
5432 – 2345 = 3087
8730 – 0378 = 8352
8532 – 2358 = 6174
The only four-digit numbers for which Kaprekar's routine does not reach 6174 are repdigits such as 1111, which give the result 0 after a single iteration. All other four-digit numbers eventually reach 6174 if leading zeros are used to keep the number of digits at 4:
2111 – 1112 = 0999
9990 – 0999 = 8991 (rather than 999 – 999 = 0)
9981 – 1899 = 8082
8820 – 0288 = 8532
8532 – 2358 = 6174
9831 reaches 6174 after 7 iterations:
9831 – 1389 = 8442
8442 – 2448 = 5994
9954 – 4599 = 5355
5553 – 3555 = 1998
9981 – 1899 = 8082
8820 – 0288 = 8532 (rather than 882 – 288 = 594)
8532 – 2358 = 6174
Note that in each iteration of Kaprekar's routine, the two numbers being subtracted one from the other have the same digit sum and hence the same remainder modulo 9. Therefore the result of each iteration of Kaprekar's routine is a multiple of 9.
495 is the equivalent constant for three-digit numbers. For five-digit numbers and above, there is no single equivalent constant; for each digit length the routine may terminate at one of several fixed values or may enter one of several loops instead.[4]

See also


  1. ^ Mysterious number 6174
  2. ^ Kaprekar DR (1955). "An Interesting Property of the Number 6174". Scripta Mathematica 15: 244–245. 
  3. ^ Kaprekar DR (1980). "On Kaprekar Numbers". Journal of Recreational Mathematics 13 (2): 81–82. 
  4. ^ a b Weisstein, Eric W., "Kaprekar Routine" from MathWorld.

External links

Thursday, January 13, 2011

College Humor for John Ellis

Hey, I don't do this stuff! One of my college-aged kids showed it to me. It's from a site called


The story behind this seems to be that particle theorist John Ellis and experimentalist Melissa Franklin were playing darts one evening at CERN in 1977, and a bet was made that would require Ellis to insert the word "penguin" somehow into his next research paper if he lost. He did lose, and was having a lot of trouble working out how he would do this. Finally, 'the answer came to him when one evening, leaving CERN, he dropped by to visit some friends where he smoked an illegal substance'. While working on his paper later that night 'in a moment of revelation he saw that the diagrams looked like penguins'.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Cranks, Quacks, and Crackpots

I feel bad for you PhDs. in Physics to have to waste your time reading crackpottery. Well, no job is perfect, everything has a downside, what can you do about it? Nothing really. Hopefully the "amusing" aspect counteracts the "annoyance" factor.

While John Baez' The Crackpot Index is amazing in its own right, are you aware of another AMAZING one by Dr. Warren Siegel of SUNY's dept. of Physics?

It's called "Are you a Quack?" and can be accessed by clicking on this sentence. Good stuff. :-)

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Intelligent T's

Sunday is God's Day

Leonardo Da Rockgod

Shut Up Sarah Palin

Sasquatch Cyclist

The Political Mind

Time for Revenge

Say Tweet Again

"Jules is trying, Ringo. He's trying real hard to be the shepherd. But this whole Twitter-lution thing is really getting to him. All this talk of "tweeple" and "twiggits" and "tweekends" is unfamiliar to him. It makes him nervous. And when he gets nervous, he gets scared. And when he gets scared... that's when mother 'effers accidentally get shot.

But he's really twying-- Oh, damn, you hear that? Now you made him twalk like a jerk. There it is again! That's the last straw!

Go ahead, say "tweet" again! He dares you. No, he double dares you -- say "tweet" one more time! Because the truth is, you're the tweak and he's thetwyranny of evil-- Argh!!! "

All pics from Headline Shirts

Friday, December 24, 2010

Manifold Destiny

"Manifold Destiny" is an article in The New Yorker written by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber and published in the August 28, 2006 issue of the magazine.[1] It gives a detailed account (including interviews with many mathematicians) of some of the circumstances surrounding the proof of the Poincaré conjecture, one of the most important accomplishments of 20th and 21st century mathematics, and traces the attempts by three teams of mathematicians to verify the proof given by Grigori Perelman.

Subtitled "A legendary problem and the battle over who solved it," the article concentrates on the human drama of the story, especially the discussion on who contributed how much to the proof of the Poincaré conjecture. Interwoven with the article is an interview with the reclusive mathematician Grigori Perelman, whom the authors tracked down to the St. Petersburg apartment he shares with his mother, as well as interviews with many mathematicians. The article describes Perelman's disillusionment and withdrawal from the mathematical community and paints an unflattering portrait of the 1982 Fields Medalist, Shing-Tung Yau.
The article was selected for inclusion in the book The Best American Science Writing 2007. Sylvia Nasar is best known for her biography of John Forbes Nash, A Beautiful Mind. David Gruber is a PhD recipient and graduate of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, who also wrote Aglow in the Dark, published by Harvard University Press.



The article begins on the evening of June 20, 2006, with a description of Yau lecturing on a paper[2] by his students, Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu, in Beijing, on the occasion of Strings 2006,[3] an international conference on string theory. That paper described their effort to verify Perelman's proof. Zhu and Cao were one of the three teams that had undertaken this task.
The article then moves on to an interview with the reclusive mathematician Grigori Perelman. The interview touches on the Fields Medal, Perelman's life prior to his proof of the Poincaré Conjecture, Richard Hamilton's formulation of a strategy to prove the conjecture, and William Thurston's geometrization conjecture. Yau's long collaborative friendship with Hamilton, which started after Yau learned of the latter's work on the Ricci flow, is also mentioned.
Subsequently, the article describes Yau in relation to the late Shiing-Shen Chern, his PhD advisor and the acknowledged top Chinese mathematician, as well as Yau's activities in the Chinese mathematical community. Nasar and Gruber write, "he was increasingly anxious ... [that] a younger scholar could try to supplant him as Chern's heir."[1]
Interweaving comments from many mathematicians, the authors present a complex narrative that touches upon matters peripheral to the Poincaré conjecture but reflective of politics in the field of mathematics:
  • Yau's supposed involvement in the controversy surrounding Alexander Givental's proof of a conjecture in the mathematics of mirror symmetry.
  • his alleged attempt (which he denied, according to the article) to bring the ICM 2002 to Hong Kong instead of Beijing, and the tussle between him and the Chinese mathematical community that allegedly resulted.
  • a conflict in 2005, in which Yau allegedly accused his student Gang Tian (a member of another team verifying Perelman's proof) of plagiarism and poor scholarship while criticizing Peking University in an interview.
In discussing the Poincaré conjecture, Nasar and Gruber also reveal an allegation against Yau that had apparently not been reported in the press before their article appeared:[4]
On April 13th of this year, the thirty-one mathematicians on the editorial board of the Asian Journal of Mathematics received a brief e-mail from Yau and the journal’s co-editor informing them that they had three days to comment on a paper by Xi-Ping Zhu and Huai-Dong Cao titled “The Hamilton–Perelman Theory of Ricci Flow: The Poincaré and Geometrization Conjectures”, which Yau planned to publish in the journal. The e-mail did not include a copy of the paper, reports from referees, or an abstract. At least one board member asked to see the paper but was told that it was not available.
The authors also report that a week after this April email, the title of the paper dramatically changed to "A Complete Proof of the Poincaré and Geometrization Conjecture — Application of the Hamilton–Perelman Theory of The Ricci Flow". (This title was retracted on December 3, 2006.) This alleged incident with the journal has not been confirmed by an outside source; however, no one involved has yet made a statement claiming that it is false.
This paper was the result of the above-mentioned work of Zhu and Cao, which Yau promoted in the Beijing conference.[5] The New Yorker article concludes by linking the alleged actions of Yau with Perelman's withdrawal from the mathematical community, stating that Perelman claimed not to see "what new contribution [Cao and Zhu] did make"; that he had become disillusioned by the lax ethical standards of the community. As for Yau, Perelman is quoted saying, “I can’t say I’m outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest”.
The article concludes with a quote from Mikhail Gromov (who earlier in the article compares Perelman's mathematical approach to that of Isaac Newton): “To do great work, you have to have a pure mind. You can think only about the mathematics. Everything else is human weakness. Accepting prizes is showing weakness.” The article is accompanied by a full page cartoon that has garnered controversy, discussed below.


The article, and an included full-page color illustration of Yau grabbing the Fields Medal hanging around Perelman's neck, has garnered controversy. It has been the subject of extensive commentaries in blogs. The controversy revolves around its emphasis on Yau's alleged stake in the Poincaré conjecture, its view that Yau was unfairly taking credit away from Perelman, and its depiction of Yau's supposed involvement in past controversies.
On August 22, 2006, Sir John M. Ball, president of the International Mathematical Union, made reference to the article and rushed publication of the Cao/Zhu paper at a speech given at the opening ceremony of the International Congress of Mathematicians.
Mathematics is a profession of high standards and integrity. We freely discuss our work with others, without fear of it being stolen, and research is communicated openly prior to formal publication. Editorial procedures are fair and proper, and work gains its reputation through merit and not by how it is promoted. These are the norms operated by the vast majority of mathematicians. The exceptions are rare, and they are noticed....[6]
On September 18, 2006, a few weeks after publication of the article, Yau's attorneys released a letter accusing The New Yorker and the article's authors of defaming Yau. In the letter, the reporters are accused of fabricating quotes and deliberately molding facts into a narrative they knew to be inaccurate.[7][8] The letter also asks for a public apology from The New Yorker. The letter appeared online on Yau's website, apparently created in response to the controversy.
The New Yorker has issued the following response to the letter:
"’Manifold Destiny,’ a 10,000-word article by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber published in the August 28, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, is the product of more than four months of thorough, careful reporting and meticulous fact-checking. Ms. Nasar and Mr. Gruber spent over twenty hours interviewing Dr. Yau; they conducted approximately 100 other interviews with people in the field; corresponded by email with Dr. Yau and many others; and traveled to China where they conducted interviews and attended speeches and events discussed in the article. In addition, the magazine’s fact-checkers spoke with Dr. Yau for approximately eight hours, they examined notes, tapes, and documents gathered by the authors, and the checkers conducted their own thorough research. Contrary to Dr. Yau’s assertions, the article is nuanced and fair, and was prepared using ethical standards of journalism. Dr. Yau, his supporters and his point of view were given ample space in the article. We stand by the piece and the journalists." [9]
Yau's legal efforts have not progressed beyond his September letter. The New Yorker has stood firmly by its story.
Two of the mathematicians interviewed in The New Yorker article — Stroock and Anderson— have allegedly issued statements in opposition to The New Yorker article, after it became available online. On Oct 6, 2006, the statements attributed to Stroock and Andersen were posted on Yau's website.[10][11]. It has not been confirmed if these mathematicians actually wrote the statements since they are not posted on their own websites and Stroock's "official" letter in the September 11, 2006 issue of The New Yorker is not critical of the article. However, to date none of these mathematicians has publicly denied writing the letters posted on Yau's website either.
On September 25, 2006, a letter from Richard Hamilton was posted on Yau's website.[12] Hamilton detailed a personal account of the history of the Ricci flow approach to the Poincaré conjecture, saying he was very disturbed by the unfair manner in which Yau had been portrayed in The New Yorker article.
As of October 16, 2006, eight mathematicians in total have posted letters expressing support for Yau on his web site.[13]
On October 17, 2006, a profile of Yau in the New York Times devoted about half its length to the Perelman dispute.[14] The article said that Yau's promotion of the Cao–Zhu paper "annoyed many mathematicians, who felt that Dr. Yau had slighted Dr. Perelman," but also presented Yau's position, namely that he had never claimed there were gaps in Perelman’s proof, but merely that it was "not understood by all people", and that he "had a duty to dig out the truth of the proof".
The same New York Times article also noted that it had been discovered that a crucial argument of the Cao–Zhu paper was identical to one from a note by Bruce Kleiner and John Lott posted online in 2003.[15] This led to an erratum being issued by Cao and Zhu in the December 2006 issue of the same journal where the original article had appeared.[16]
On December 22, 2006, Science Magazine honored Perelman's proof (with "missing key details" filled by others) of the Poincaré Conjecture as the scientific "Breakthrough of the Year," the first time this had been bestowed in the area of mathematics.[17]. The article mentioned how Cao and Zhu had copied from Kleiner and Lott and reported that Cao and Zhu "grudgingly printed an erratum acknowledging Kleiner and Lott's priority". The article also quoted Yau as saying of the Poincaré conjecture, "The methods developed … should shed light on many natural systems, such as the Navier-Stokes equation [of fluid dynamics] and the Einstein equation [of general relativity]." It also talks of animosity among mathematicians following this episode where the AMS attempted to have a panel on the Poincaré and geometrization conjectures at its January 2007 meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. However, this attempt by the organizer John Ewing fell through after Lott refused to share the stage with Zhu.
On December 26, 2006, National Public Radio (NPR) released an account of the Poincaré conjecture and the controversy surrounding The New Yorker article.[18] David Kestenbaum, a former Harvard Physics graduate student, reported on the story. In his interview, Yau called Perelman’s work “truly original and genius”, and the New Yorker article as inaccurate, denying having given a quote concerning credit contributions at a specific press conference referenced by the New Yorker. He did not directly answer if he had ever made such a statement. "NPR translated an audiotape provided by Yau" and their analysis was in agreement with Yau's statements. Sylvia Nasar was said to have declined multiple attempts for interview by NPR.[19]

Revision of the Cao–Zhu article

After the similarity with the argument by Kleiner and Lott had been pointed out, Cao and Zhu published an erratum that appeared in the November 2006 issue of the Asian Journal of Mathematics,[16] confirming that the material was by Kleiner and Lott, stating that its uncredited appearance in the Cao–Zhu paper was due to an oversight, and apologizing for failing to properly attribute the copied argument. In the same issue, the AJM editorial board issued an apology for what it called "incautions" in the Cao–Zhu paper.
On December 3, 2006, Cao and Zhu retracted the original version of their paper, which was titled “A Complete Proof of the Poincaré and Geometrization Conjectures — Application of the Hamilton–Perelman Theory of the Ricci Flow”[2] and posted a revised version, renamed, more modestly, "Hamilton–Perelman's Proof of the Poincaré Conjecture and the Geometrization Conjecture".[20] Rather than the claim of the original abstract, "we give a complete proof", suggesting the proof is by the authors, the revised abstract states: "we give a detailed exposition of a complete proof". The authors also took out the phrase "crowning achievement" from the abstract.


  1. ^ a b Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber. "Manifold Destiny: A legendary problem and the battle over who solved it", The New Yorker, August 21, 2006. (The title is a word play on "Manifest Destiny".)
  2. ^ a b Cao, Huai-Dong; Zhu, Xi-Ping (2006). "A complete proof of the Poincaré and geometrization conjectures — application of the Hamilton–Perelman theory of the Ricci flow". Asian Journal of Mathematics 10 (2): 165–492. MR2233789. 
  3. ^ The Strings 2006 website
  4. ^ See, however, Award Loses a Hero, Kommersant, 23 August 2006. Retrieved on 2006-08-29.
  5. ^ See, for example, Chinese work on solving Poincare Conjecture recognized, China View (Xinhua), 21 Jun 2006. Retrieved on 2006-08-29.
  6. ^
  7. ^ "Math prof says New Yorker defamed him", Boston Herald, 20 Sept 2006
  8. ^ Letter to New Yorker, from Yau's attorneys Todd & Weld LLP
  9. ^ "New Yorker: Math prof’s charges don’t add up", Boston Herald, 20 Sept 2006
  10. ^ Stroock's statement
  11. ^ Andersen's statement
  12. ^ "Richard S. Hamilton's Letter to Yau Shing-Tung' Attorney" a letter
  13. ^ Testimonials on Shing-Tung Yau's web site
  14. ^ Overbye, Dennis (17 October 2006). "Shing-tung Yau: The Emperor of Math". New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2010. 
  15. ^ This discovery is sometimes attributed to Sujit Nair, then a postdoc student at the University of Southern California (e.g. in George G. Szpiro's Poincaré's Prize), but his blog posting announcing the discovery was in fact posted on the day the New York Times article appeared and quotes from that article, and a side-by-side comparison he published later, calling it plagiarism, was described as emailed to him by someone else. The subsequent erratum issued by Cao and Zhu thanks Kleiner and Lott for bringing the issue to their attention.
  16. ^ a b Cao, Huai-Dong; Zhu, Xi-Ping (2006). "Erratum to “A complete proof of the Poincaré and geometrization conjectures — application of the Hamilton–Perelman theory of the Ricci flow”, Asian J. Math., Vol. 10, No. 2, 165-492, 2006". Asian Journal of Mathematics 10 (4): 663–664. MR2282358. 
  17. ^ Mackenzie, Dana (2006-12-22). "The Poincaré Conjecture—Proved". Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 314 (5807): 1848–1849. doi:10.1126/science.314.5807.1848. ISSN: 0036-8075. Retrieved 2006-12-29. 
  18. ^ "Solving an Old Math Problem Nets Award, Trouble". National Public Radio. 26 December 2006. 
  19. ^ "NPR interview transript"
  20. ^ Cao, Huai-Dong and Zhu, Xi-Ping (December 3, 2006). "Hamilton–Perelman's Proof of the Poincaré Conjecture and the Geometrization Conjecture". 

External links