Saturday, October 13, 2018

Chuyện "Tàu ở giữa" 3 (LHNam)

Như có nói qua về việc cầm nhầm các ca khúc của nước Nam trong bài : "Đồng cổ dữ Man ca...", chuyện mạo hóa, cầm nhầm , ăn cắp nó nằm trong máu "tàu ở giữa". Đỉnh điểm của sự việc này là chuyện mạo nhận, tiếm xưng danh nghĩa công trình đã giải ra Poincaré conjecture (Giả thuyết Poincaré) vào năm 2003 của Grigory Perelman , nhà toán học đã từ chối cả Fields Medal (2006), và Clay Millennium Prize(2010). Perelman đã đăng bài giải trên Internet trong 3 kỳ trong năm 2003. Các nhà toán học có khả năng kiểm chứng chứng minh củsa Perelman sau này đã công nhận là đúng. Vào năm 2006, giám khào giải Fileds muốn trao cho g/sư G. Perelman, và đề nghị Ngài John M. Ball sang Nga tìm gặp g/sư Perelman để thuyết phục ông nhận giải, nhưng Grigory Perelman một mực từ chối và nói rằng ông ta không quan tâm tiới tiền tài hay danh vọng { và hiện cũng vẫn sống nghèo trong một căn hộ, với mẹ ông ta , năm 2006}. Chuyện cầm nhầm, xảy ra vì g/s Khâu Thành Đồng tuyên bố vào tháng 6, 2006 là hai học trò của mình là Chu Hi Bình và Tào Hoài Đông đã "hoàn tất" chứng minh cho Giả thuyết Poincaré, trong khi đó cộng đồng toán học có nghiên cứu Già thuyết Poincaré đều hầu hết biết G. Perelman mới chính người đã chứng minh thỏa đáng nó năm 2003 trên Internet . Hơi bị kẹt một chút , để KTĐồng có thể nói học trò mình chứng minh được là vì : "Chàng Khùng" Perelman không chịu gởi chứng minh của mình để công bố trên các tạp chí toán uy tín trên giấy in (paper/papier), hay online, mà chỉ post solutions 3 kỳ trên một diễn đàn Internet, trong dạng 1 tiền-ấn bản (preprint) trên tạp chí online, và sau đó không tiếp tục quyêt định gởi đi in trêm 1 tạp chí toán nào đó để hoàn tất việc xuất bản , in ấn, dù là trong dạng e-print.



" " There are two ways to get credit for an original contribution in mathematics. The first is to produce an original proof. The second is to identify a significant gap in someone else’s proof and supply the missing chunk. However, only true mathematical gaps—missing or mistaken arguments—can be the basis for a claim of originality. Filling in gaps in exposition—shortcuts and abbreviations used to make a proof more efficient—does not count. When, in 1993, Andrew Wiles revealed that a gap had been found in his proof of Fermat’s last theorem, the problem became fair game for anyone, until, the following year, Wiles fixed the error. Most mathematicians would agree that, by contrast, if a proof’s implicit steps can be made explicit by an expert, then the gap is merely one of exposition, and the proof should be considered complete and correct.

Occasionally, the difference between a mathematical gap and a gap in exposition can be hard to discern. On at least one occasion, Yau and his students have seemed to confuse the two, making claims of originality that other mathematicians believe are unwarranted. In 1996, a young geometer at Berkeley named Alexander Givental had proved a mathematical conjecture about mirror symmetry, a concept that is fundamental to string theory. Though other mathematicians found Givental’s proof hard to follow, they were optimistic that he had solved the problem. As one geometer put it, “Nobody at the time said it was incomplete and incorrect.”

In the fall of 1997, Kefeng Liu, a former student of Yau’s who taught at Stanford, gave a talk at Harvard on mirror symmetry. According to two geometers in the audience, Liu proceeded to present a proof strikingly similar to Givental’s, describing it as a paper that he had co-authored with Yau and another student of Yau’s. “Liu mentioned Givental but only as one of a long list of people who had contributed to the field,” one of the geometers said. (Liu maintains that his proof was significantly different from Givental’s.)

Around the same time, Givental received an e-mail signed by Yau and his collaborators, explaining that they had found his arguments impossible to follow and his notation baffling, and had come up with a proof of their own. They praised Givental for his “brilliant idea” and wrote, “In the final version of our paper your important contribution will be acknowledged.”

A few weeks later, the paper, “Mirror Principle I,” appeared in the Asian Journal of Mathematics, which is co-edited by Yau. In it, Yau and his coauthors describe their result as “the first complete proof” of the mirror conjecture. They mention Givental’s work only in passing. “Unfortunately,” they write, his proof, “which has been read by many prominent experts, is incomplete.” However, they did not identify a specific mathematical gap.

Givental was taken aback. “I wanted to know what their objection was,” he told us. “Not to expose them or defend myself.” In March, 1998, he published a paper that included a three-page footnote in which he pointed out a number of similarities between Yau’s proof and his own. Several months later, a young mathematician at the University of Chicago who was asked by senior colleagues to investigate the dispute concluded that Givental’s proof was complete. Yau says that he had been working on the proof for years with his students and that they achieved their result independently of Givental. “We had our own ideas, and we wrote them up,” 
he says." " 


...Zhu and Cao credit Perelman with having “brought in fresh new ideas to figure out important steps to overcome the main obstacles that remained in the program of Hamilton.” However, they write, they were obliged to “substitute several key arguments of Perelman by new approaches based on our study, because we were unable to comprehend these original arguments of Perelman which are essential to the completion of the geometrization program.” Mathematicians familiar with Perelman’s proof disputed the idea that Zhu and Cao had contributed significant new approaches to the Poincaré. “Perelman already did it and what he did was complete and correct,” John Morgan said. “I don’t see that they did anything different.” "

Mathematics, more than many other fields, depends on collaboration. Most problems require the insights of several mathematicians in order to be solved, and the profession has evolved a standard for crediting individual contributions that is as stringent as the rules governing math itself. As Perelman put it, “If everyone is honest, it is natural to share ideas.” Many mathematicians view Yau’s conduct over the Poincaré as a violation of this basic ethic, and worry about the damage it has caused the profession. “Politics, power, and control have no legitimate role in our community, and they threaten the integrity of our field,” Phillip Griffiths said."

( Nasar&Gruber-The New Yorker)

No comments:

Post a Comment