Birkar? Maybe people who don't know anything about algebraic geometry didn't know who he was. I feel the same way when analysts win.It is questionable whether his contribution called for a fields medal. You don't agree. I'll live with that.
Why do you say it was questionable whether he deserved it?
Birkar has a very strong body of work, starting with his contributions to the famous BCHM paper all the way up to his work on the boundedness of Fano varieties.
Mr. Hacon is that you?People barely knew who he was, lol.
Birkar? Maybe people who don't know anything about algebraic geometry didn't know who he was. I feel the same way when analysts win.
Scholze also didn't know who Birkar was FWIW (as mentioned in his interview after getting the Fields)
Mr. Hacon is that you?
People barely knew who he was, lol.
Birkar? Maybe people who don't know anything about algebraic geometry didn't know who he was. I feel the same way when analysts win.
Scholze also didn't know who Birkar was FWIW (as mentioned in his interview after getting the Fields)
They work in different fields
They work in different fields
They both work in algebraic geometry. Frankly it's either
1) a c r a p p y field if your colleague in algebraic geometry in characteristic p is not aware of the leading figures in birational geometry.
2) the fact that Birkar wasn't quite the leader we were told he is (hint hint Hacon and McKernan).
For the final lolz I'll add that Birkar means "migrant mathematician" in Kurdish. That's the name this guy choose for him when emigrating to the UK.
They work in different fieldsThey both work in algebraic geometry. Frankly it's either
1) a c r a p p y field if your colleague in algebraic geometry in characteristic p is not aware of the leading figures in birational geometry.
2) the fact that Birkar wasn't quite the leader we were told he is (hint hint Hacon and McKernan).
For the final lolz I'll add that Birkar means "migrant mathematician" in Kurdish. That's the name this guy choose for him when emigrating to the UK.
Please explain why you think Birkar is not a leading figure in birational geometry
They work in different fieldsThey both work in algebraic geometry. Frankly it's either
1) a c r a p p y field if your colleague in algebraic geometry in characteristic p is not aware of the leading figures in birational geometry.
2) the fact that Birkar wasn't quite the leader we were told he is (hint hint Hacon and McKernan).
For the final lolz I'll add that Birkar means "migrant mathematician" in Kurdish. That's the name this guy choose for him when emigrating to the UK.
If Scholze had never heard of Birkar, then he probably knew little, if anything, about Hacon and McKernan, since Birkar was a coauthor on their most important work.
Birkar’s medal was political, if you can’t see it you never will. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe some lefties could never resist the temptation of creating a walking pro migration argument. I think it’s definitely a major incentive to a lefty mind. Birkar’s work simply wasn’t groundbreaking, partially because birational geometry is not “where it’s at”
Birkar’s medal was political, if you can’t see it you never will. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe some lefties could never resist the temptation of creating a walking pro migration argument. I think it’s definitely a major incentive to a lefty mind. Birkar’s work simply wasn’t groundbreaking, partially because birational geometry is not “where it’s at”
Please make up your mind
First you said Birkar is not a leader in his field, now you are saying that his field is not "where it's at."
Your argument makes zero sense. Birkar has objectively done incredible work. He was already a full professor at Cambridge while still in his 30s. Nobody gets there without doing really important work. They didn't just randomly decide to give a Fields Medal to someone with a migrant background who had done mildly good work.
I would actually be more receptive to arguments that Mori's influence is why someone in birational geometry got a medal in 2018.
But who in birational geometry who was eligible in 2018 was more qualified than Birkar?
Please explain why you think Birkar is not a leading figure in birational geometry
I don't have any explaining to do. You wrote obvious non-sense saying that they "work in different fields". Pre-Fields Birkar was "leading" so much that even Scholze who works _in the same field_ (but not the same sub-field of that field) didn't hear about him. So by definition he wasn't leading. For example, if you work in analysis and Bourgain/Tao didn't hear about you, then you are not a "leading analyst".
On the other hand now Birkar is "leading" just by virtue of the honor he received. What is also telling is that you can have a look at the post-Fields honors that other Fields medalist received for all of them it's a huge pill-up but for Birkar it's ... crickets. Even the thief in Rio knew that Birkar didn't deserve his medal and decided to steal his medal ... not Scholze's, bro. He had more common sense than you despite not finishing high school.
Birkar’s medal was political, if you can’t see it you never will. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe some lefties could never resist the temptation of creating a walking pro migration argument. I think it’s definitely a major incentive to a lefty mind. Birkar’s work simply wasn’t groundbreaking, partially because birational geometry is not “where it’s at”Please make up your mind
First you said Birkar is not a leader in his field, now you are saying that his field is not "where it's at."
Your argument makes zero sense. Birkar has objectively done incredible work. He was already a full professor at Cambridge while still in his 30s. Nobody gets there without doing really important work. They didn't just randomly decide to give a Fields Medal to someone with a migrant background who had done mildly good work.
I would actually be more receptive to arguments that Mori's influence is why someone in birational geometry got a medal in 2018.
But who in birational geometry who was eligible in 2018 was more qualified than Birkar?
He did good work nobody is disputing that. If his work sucked it wouldn't be published in the Annals. Again, there are only two possibilities:
1) Either even top people in algebraic geometry (e.g Scholze) don't care enough about birational geometry to know who the supposedly "leading" people are, but in this case there should have been no medal in "birational geometry"
OR
2) They care about birational geometry (I think they really do) but Birkar was simply not the leader you are claiming he was. (On the other hand I am sure Scholze heard of Hacon).
There were many other candidates who were at least as much deserving as Birkar who didn't get it, e.g Williamson or Wei Zhang or Brendle. But they went for Birkar and it's hard not to think that it was not political. There was Mori of course but the refugee angle is also hard to overlook since it was emphasized. Had they given it to him without rubbing in everybody's face that he's "one of those refugees" we wouldn't be thinking this.
Birkar’s medal was political, if you can’t see it you never will. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe some lefties could never resist the temptation of creating a walking pro migration argument. I think it’s definitely a major incentive to a lefty mind. Birkar’s work simply wasn’t groundbreaking, partially because birational geometry is not “where it’s at”Please make up your mind
First you said Birkar is not a leader in his field, now you are saying that his field is not "where it's at."
Your argument makes zero sense. Birkar has objectively done incredible work. He was already a full professor at Cambridge while still in his 30s. Nobody gets there without doing really important work. They didn't just randomly decide to give a Fields Medal to someone with a migrant background who had done mildly good work.
I would actually be more receptive to arguments that Mori's influence is why someone in birational geometry got a medal in 2018.
But who in birational geometry who was eligible in 2018 was more qualified than Birkar?
Ah yes and since you asked Chenyang Xu is at least as eligible
He did good work nobody is disputing that. If his work sucked it wouldn't be published in the Annals. Again, there are only two possibilities:
1) Either even top people in algebraic geometry (e.g Scholze) don't care enough about birational geometry to know who the supposedly "leading" people are, but in this case there should have been no medal in "birational geometry"
OR
2) They care about birational geometry (I think they really do) but Birkar was simply not the leader you are claiming he was. (On the other hand I am sure Scholze heard of Hacon).
There were many other candidates who were at least as much deserving as Birkar who didn't get it, e.g Williamson or Wei Zhang or Brendle. But they went for Birkar and it's hard not to think that it was not political. There was Mori of course but the refugee angle is also hard to overlook since it was emphasized. Had they given it to him without rubbing in everybody's face that he's "one of those refugees" we wouldn't be thinking this.
Did PS literally say he hadn't heard of Birkar? Or did he say something along the lines of not being very familiar with his work?
If someone cares about birational geometry and cares about Hacon's work, they would know who Birkar is, since Birkar was a coauthor on Hacon's biggest paper. You have yet to address this. You regard Hacon as a leader in the field. Well, Birkar was a coauthor on Hacon's biggest, most impactful paper and additionally did very important work without any coauthors. What does that make Birkar?
Who rubbed in the "refugee angle" in people's faces? It wasn't the mathematicians who awarded the medals, but the media. The media has to find something nontechnical to write about each of the medalists. I saw a video that focused on Figalli's long distance relationship, for example. Who cares.
He did good work nobody is disputing that. If his work sucked it wouldn't be published in the Annals. Again, there are only two possibilities:
1) Either even top people in algebraic geometry (e.g Scholze) don't care enough about birational geometry to know who the supposedly "leading" people are, but in this case there should have been no medal in "birational geometry"
OR
2) They care about birational geometry (I think they really do) but Birkar was simply not the leader you are claiming he was. (On the other hand I am sure Scholze heard of Hacon).
There were many other candidates who were at least as much deserving as Birkar who didn't get it, e.g Williamson or Wei Zhang or Brendle. But they went for Birkar and it's hard not to think that it was not political. There was Mori of course but the refugee angle is also hard to overlook since it was emphasized. Had they given it to him without rubbing in everybody's face that he's "one of those refugees" we wouldn't be thinking this.Did PS literally say he hadn't heard of Birkar? Or did he say something along the lines of not being very familiar with his work?
If someone cares about birational geometry and cares about Hacon's work, they would know who Birkar is, since Birkar was a coauthor on Hacon's biggest paper. You have yet to address this. You regard Hacon as a leader in the field. Well, Birkar was a coauthor on Hacon's biggest, most impactful paper and additionally did very important work without any coauthors. What does that make Birkar?
Who rubbed in the "refugee angle" in people's faces? It wasn't the mathematicians who awarded the medals, but the media. The media has to find something nontechnical to write about each of the medalists. I saw a video that focused on Figalli's long distance relationship, for example. Who cares.
The refugee angle was literally on the official ICM video that was shown during the ceremony. I think the statement by Scholze speaks for itself:
"Of course I knew of Venkatesh, after all he is a number theorist, and Figalli I had also met before, but I must admit that I was not familiar with the work of Birkar. "
I will translate it from German for you, it is a polite way of saying "I don't think Birkar had the level of influence for the Fields, so I was surprised when he got it". Your argument about Birkar being a co-author of Hacon is basically an irrelevant red-herring.
All the posts about Birkar are irrelevant to this thread and just plain bizarre. Obviously the poster(s) know nothing about Birkar or the math in his area.
There's only one explanation: Those posts were made by Qiaochu Yuan, or people from his dwindling circle of friends, to distract the conversation that QY has failed and is now jobless.
All the posts about Birkar are irrelevant to this thread and just plain bizarre. Obviously the poster(s) know nothing about Birkar or the math in his area.
There's only one explanation: Those posts were made by Qiaochu Yuan, or people from his dwindling circle of friends, to distract the conversation that QY has failed and is now jobless.
I think PS is one of the posters. He also knows nothing about Birkar and his area.
XJMR is a community website that relies on advertising to keep it running. We'll love you forever if you unblock.