Talk:Terence Tao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Terence Tao is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: Start Class High Priority  Field: Mathematicians

Contents

[edit] Claimed to prove?

Why is it said that the preprint claimed to proof the existence of arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions? This implies to me that there is reason to believe that the proof is wrong. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Proofs can take awhile to be accepted. If they released the proof in 2004 then if it's ot fully accepted yet that's normal.--T. Anthony 06:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter anymore as someone has changed the wording to not say "claimed", but anyway, Tao's webpage lists the preprint as having been accepted for publication to the Annals. So using such careful language at this point can be considered being overly skeptical. --C S (Talk) 12:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian?

Could he be considered an Australian still? Please help us at Talk:Chinese_Australian#Tereance_Tao. enochlau (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is acceptable, but on his website it says Although both my parents are Chinese (hence my name), I consider myself primarily an Australian.--T. Anthony 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be revised as to call him a "self-hating Chinese"

I consider it unwarranted to jump from "I consider myself primarily an Australian" (as stated in Tao's home page) to "self-hating Chinese". Roger Hui 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Like many Australians of Chinese descent, he has cut all ties with his ancestral roots and has adopted the culture of his family's new home. Does this make him a ¨self-hating Chinese¨? Possibly, but we cannot say. He has claimed to be Australian even though he has abandoned it for fame and fortune in America. Can we still say he is an Australian? By the same argument, we cannot say with any degree of confidence. We will just have to let Terence himself answer that. I hope he joins this discussion soon. 84.9.129.164 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Alfred Tao

Just curious, why does he have to choose one identity? Or can we say he can have multiple identities, for example, Hong Kong Chinese, OZ, Californian or even Shanghainese (judging from his family name)? Karl 2006/12/18


ah, he was orginally from Shanghai! Now it all makes sense. Yes I see.

==> Would anyone object if we erased this absurd digression into analyzing whether a man born in Australia should be considered Australian or not? Why, please explain, should someone that is proud of his country of birth be classified as hating his race? This concept of "self-hating" for being born in a country not known for a particular race is proto-typical racial insecurity at its best - no-one would dare criticize him for "self-hatred" if he was white and his last name was O'Connor. Terence himself seems simultaneously proud of his ancestry as well as his place of birth. I find even the mention of "self-hating Chinese" comment hateful, ignorant and embarrassing. If he gives up his Australian passport (e.g. for an American one) then you *might* say that he is not Australian. But until then, he IS Australian. And no matter what, he will always be of Chinese ancestry. So Let Go and accept that in the 21st Century you can be proud of both birthplace and race, and hate neither. [2007-03-14 Andrew E]

[edit] Fields Medal rumour

He is supposedly getting a Fields Medal later this year; but this can't go in the article at this point. Charles Matthews 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. This is starting to remind me of the Apple-related pages like iPod. Anybody taking bets? --C S (Talk) 09:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The rumor is true

Whoever bet it was true wins...I don't know something.[1][2][3][4]. Also he is the youngest winner?--T. Anthony 12:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I remembered Jean-Pierre Serre was a young winner and indeed he won at 28. Not sure if he's the youngest or not, but younger than Tao.--T. Anthony 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This article says Tao is 31. By the way - welcome back! Jpe|ob 12:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I was sincere in leaving and my page still has "Former:Wikipedian" on it. I consider that accurate in a way as I no longer think Wikipedia is useful in design or execution. I don't consider myself a Wikipedian anymore. However, to my dismay, I do still find it fun on occasion.--T. Anthony 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most important award?

"...the most important award for younger mathematicians." -- What's the most important award for older mathematicians? Stateful 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I get it, you have to be under 40 to get the Fields Medal. Stateful 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There are several lifetime achievement awards, but traditionally, for awards purely in mathematics (in general), the Wolf Prize in Mathematics and the Steele Prize for Lifetime Achievement are probably the most prestigious. The Abel Prize is also such an award and very high-profile, but is fairly new compared to the others. --C S (Talk) 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympiad details

Not questioning Tao's qualities and feats, it could still be noted somehow that in being the youngest IMO participant or the youngest gold medal winner, the country one represents is a considerable factor (i.e. most top performance countries would not select an 11-year-old student, however good s/he be; PR China never selects a student before his/her final year a.f.a.i.k.)

I'm sorry but how does the fact that Tao is the youngest winner have anything to do with China's IMO selection process? Who cares what China's IMO selection process is or any other country's selection process is? If China is stupid enough to discriminate by age instead of by score, then tough luck. 66.171.76.210 05:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He is one of only two children in the history of the Davidson's Study of Exceptional Talent program that have achieved a score of 700 or greater on the SAT math section while just 8 years old (he scored a 760).

Who is the other one? Just curious to know if that other exceptional child also turned out to be a world-class mathematician. Robert@124.106.13.142 11:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the great Vladimir Drinfeld won an IMO gold for the USSR, but he was about 17 or so.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead picture

I find the current picture in the lead rather tawdry. It's better to have his photo that is in the later part of the article. --C S (Talk) 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok it seems somebody has now put both pictures at the top. But I think if we just have the portrait photo at the top, it can be larger. I'm not convinced the timeline picture is really that great and perhaps we should just not include it at all. --C S (Talk) 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep his Fields Medal portrait, but larger. The timeline image strikes me as a bit tacky. It also doesn't seem right to emphasize the early age of his achievements over their intrinsic depth. Most people don't win a Fields Medal at any age, prodigy or not. Etale 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What ever happened to Terence's portrait? We need to show the face of the boy genius, geeky or not.

[edit] Hanyu pinyin for names

Its nice to have their family member in chinese names, but there should be Hanyu Pinyin and also cantonese pronounciation as a guide.

just a thought

--Visik 11:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese name should be removed, as he is Australian (and American?), not Chinese. At most, he is a Chinese-Australian. Albert Einstein does not have a Hebrew version of his name, nor does Michael Dukakis have a Greek version of his name. I agree with the following arguments presented in Eric Shinseki's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Shinseki#Use_of_Japanese_written_form_of_his_name To include his Chinese name demonstrates a bias toward emphasizing the ancestry of people of Asian race.

[edit] Description of Field Medal

There have been a couple of edits (some by me) changing how the Fields Medal is described in the lead section. I've seen the following texts:

  • This [i.e., the Fields Medal] is equivalent to the Nobel Prize for mathematics.
  • This is generally considered to be the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for mathematics.
  • The Fields Medal is an award for young mathematicians, which includes a small monetary gift, and is awarded once every four years.
  • The Fields Medal is widely viewed as the top honour a mathematician can receive.
  • The Fields Medal is a prize awarded to young mathematicians. (the current version)

I think the most important point is to stress exactly how prestigious the Fields is, which is why I prefer the fourth version (which uses the text from Fields Medal). The current version fails to make this point; the fact that it is awarded to young mathematicians (where young in fact means below 40) is in my opinion of lesser importance. I could live with the first two versions, except that Fields Medal explains that it is in fact not equivalent to the Nobel Prize; perhaps we should change it to "The Fields Medal is the equivalent in prestige of the Nobel Prize for mathematics"? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the recent anonymous editor considers it more informative to describe the Fields medal as "an award for young...". Makes it sound like some minor award for some yet-to-be-tenured mathematician. I would go by the fact that articles don't start describing the medal like this, for, I expect, the same reasons as you mention.
I prefer the fourth version also. I don't think a comparison to the Nobel is warranted. One could even argue that the Fields prestige is actually far greater (whatever that means). --C S (Talk) 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it is important to stress exactly how prestigious the Fields Medal is. Most people know how prestige the Fields Medal is. Some even agrue that Fields Medal is more prestige than the Nobel Prize. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

What ever happened to Terry's portrait? We should use the one from his Fields Medal awards ceremony. The previous one I agree makes him look too geeky. In real life he looks much more butch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.129.164 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 November 2006

You should be more specific. What picture from the ceremony should we be using? Does "the previous one" refer to the photo of somebody else that you added?
You should also participate in the discussion about the description of the Fields Medal above before changing it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link to the photo of Terence in action. I feel it shows his passion for mathematics, and shows him in action in the classroom. http://www.crm.umontreal.ca/Aisenstadt/Tao/Tao/images/3.TerenceTao.jpg

[edit] Mozart of maths

Is this really so notable a nickname? It appears to me that Garnett (UCLA) compared him to Mozart, a few newspapers picked up the "mozart of maths" title, and now somebody added it prominently to the article in the belief that this is a notable nickname. --C S (Talk) 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's also my impression, so I removed it (again). By the way, why is this article in Category:Calculating prodigies? I can't find anything in the article about his being particularly good at mental arithmetic. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Lose

He beat my by 20 points even when I was 11 year old. I always thought I was good at math =P

Keep in mind, this was the pre 1995 SAT, in which it was extremely difficult to score above 700, much more difficult than it is now. Back then, only one or two people in a couple of years would recieve perfect scores. Knowing this, that score almost passes belief.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Back in 1993, I got 800 (as an old man of fifteen), and I would be extremely surprised if this turned out to be uncommon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.204.78 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

I think this article should be improved. This is the biography of a brilliant mathematician. This article can achieve GA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)