Where is treasure of Perelman?

[questfortruth]

The Poincare Conjecture states:

Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.

Homeomorphisms are the isomorphisms in the category of topological spaces--that
is, they are the mappings that preserve all the topological properties of a given
space. Two spaces with a homeomorphism between them are called homeomorphic,
and from a topological viewpoint they are the same.

On December 22, 2006, the journal Science honored Perelman's proof of the
Poincare conjecture as the scientific ``Breakthrough of the Year'', the
first time this honor was bestowed in the area of
mathematics. As of 2020, the Poincare conjecture is the only solved
"Millennium problem". The Millennium Prize Problems are seven problems in
mathematics that were stated by the Clay Mathematics Institute on May 24, 2000.

Surely, there was great incompatibility between Dr. Perelman and the global
Mathematical Society: the perfect genius has said some painful words against
the decision-making of the Institutes, and has refused to collect the
Prize money. The Clay Institute subsequently used Perelman's prize money to fund the
"Poincare Chair", a temporary position for young promising mathematicians
at the Paris Institut Henri Poincare.

Yes, all parties acted strictly in the framework of treaties and criminal laws.
But within the law, there can be more or less worthy actions, more and less
wise actions. And even legal unworthy actions and deeds.

Even if Clay Institute would have given the Millennium Prize for solving the hard
mathematical problem to the starving children in Africa; the Perelman
has not ordered such noble charity, i.e. the Perelman did
not say: "distribute my Millennium Prize as you decide, e.g. give
support to young talents." For some skeptics then, the Clay Institute
is indebted to the thinking community: the promised and deserved Prize
was not awarded to the right person.

All this drives me to a natural conclusion, that the deal
with Prize is unfinished; therefore, the Clay Institute
can give to someone, who is more grateful and less scandalous, the Prize.
The proof is not finished until the "champaign is opened", i.e. the right social
behavior is the expected part of the scientific process. Therefore, to still
receive this Millennium Award one can: give an alternative proof of the
Poincare Conjecture: ``Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but
only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.''
1 Corinthians 9:24.

 

[Polymath257]

Perleman refused the prize, so it was given to a charity. After his refusal, he had no say in the matter.

The only way to get the money is to get the job in Paris.

Even if you found a correct proof of the Poincare conjecture, you would not get this money.

 

[questfortruth]

Perleman refused the prize, so it was given to a charity. After his refusal, he had no say in the matter.

The only way to get the money is to get the job in Paris.

Even if you found a correct proof of the Poincare conjecture, you would not get this money.

I have presented my argumented position. You have not given a counter-argument.

 

[Polymath257]

I have presented my argument position. You have not given a counter-argument.

No argument needed. Only the legal facts. Once Perleman refused the prize, it was dispensed of in a legal fashion and is no longer his to control and it was dispensed.

And t is irrelevant anyway: you don't and won't have a valid proof. I would bet you cannot even give a detailed account of what the question is.

 

[questfortruth]

No argument needed.

Then do you admit, that you have not a counter-argument to my argumented position?

 

[Polymath257]

Then do you admit, that you have not a counter-argument to my argumented position?

The counter argument is the legal status of that prize. And it is definitive.

 

[questfortruth]

Only the legal facts. Once Perleman refused the prize, it was dispensed of in a legal fashion and is no longer his to control and it was dispensed.

Yes, all parties acted strictly in the framework of treaties and criminal laws. But within the law, there can be more or less worthy actions, more and less wise actions. And even legal unworthy actions and deeds.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, all parties acted strictly in the framework of treaties and criminal laws. But within the law, there can be more or less worthy actions, more and less wise actions. And even legal unworthy actions and deeds.

And these were completely within the law and were worthy.

And, like I said, the whole discussion is irrelevant because you don't have a valid proof of the Poincare conjecture. Perleman did and refused the prize.

 

[questfortruth]

and were worthy

Referee: ``the actions and decisions of the Clay Institute and Dr. Perelman
are worthy, noble, nice, and beautiful.''

Me in reply: ``I am not an all-knowing being, because I am argumenting my texts.
But you are exactly like one because the reader must believe you without any
evidence. You have a fallacy of wishful thinking.''

 

[questfortruth]

And these were completely within the law and were worthy.

please reread my latter comment. Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

please reread my latter comment. Thanks.

I reread it. It is still irrelevant.

Of course, if you ever get a proof that is accepted, you can try to sue based on your argument.

Predictions:
1. You will never find an argument that is accepted by the mathematical community.
2. If you sue, your case will be thrown out.

 

[questfortruth]

you don't have a valid proof of the Poincare conjecture

I have unpublished proof. It could be wrong, but today it is considered as right (only by me).

 

[questfortruth]

you can try to sue

I can not sue the Clay Institute, because the laws and treaty
were not broken: my remark is not the legal issue, but rather of a social
manners one.