This is an archive of past discussions about Zhu Xiping. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The ONLY NOTABLE thing that this person DID is to DEROGATE Perelman's contributions in topology, and ATTEMPTED TO STEAL Perelman's credits. For such a behavior ONE does not deserve to be in Wikipedia, at best has place in the yellow press or on the bench in the court for performing a crime. p.s. Most of the current entry is PROMO, and the fact that Perelman is Fields medalist, does not mean that Zhu deserves to be acknowledged for any significant math contribution to the topic. Please see the various details posted by me on Talk:Grigori Perelman. My vote is: DELETE THE ENTRY. Danko Georgiev MD 04:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of this "The Morningside Group medal". Why this is notable? Danko Georgiev MD 07:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The wikiarticle states that Xi-Ping Zhu's contribution is only verifying Perelman's proof. This is an objective statement rather than a controversial one. In wikiarticles like Bruce Kleiner, John Lott, Huai-Dong Cao, etc., it is stated that Bruce Kleiner and John Lott's paper was the first publication acknowledging Perelman's accomplishment (in May, 2006), which was shortly followed by similar papers by Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu (in June) and John Morgan and Gang Tian (in July).
In terms of notability, it is recorded that Xi-Ping Zhu won a notable ICCM award in December 2004. According to [1], the number of international participants of ICCM'04 is 700, which makes the conference one of the largest international math venues and a notable one. In North America and Asia, the influence (with respect to notability) of a conference and organization is proportional to its scale---if you can attract more participants or audience, at least the notability concern is relieved.
I notice that the article Bruce Kleiner has the same notability concern but is not deleted upon contents improvement. The contents of Xi-Ping Zhu and Bruce Kleiner are also comparable in many ways. Similar articles such as Daniel W. Stroock, Michael Anderson, Alexander Givental are not deleted as well. Likewise, they are professors of mathematics with similar reputation in their fields. --Jiejunkong 08:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability guideline WP:BIO

I received deletion notification of this article hours ago. I was not notified before that. Afterward, I have responded the notability concern according to WP:BIO, "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.".

In addition, I quote wikiarticles Bruce Kleiner, Daniel W. Stroock, Michael Anderson, Alexander Givental as comparable cases to this wikiarticle being discussed. The wikiarticles have similar contents.--Jiejunkong 08:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jiejunkong as far as I know in Chinese Press there was not announcement that Bruce Kleiner, Daniel W. Stroock, Michael Anderson, Alexander Givental and others HAVE SOLVED THE POINCARE CONJECTURE. If the entry is not deleted, the scandal around Zhu's name, as well as Cao as students and/or collaborators of Yau must be objectively reflected. They have published claims "for crowning achievement", and "first complete proof" hoping for the 1 million prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute, because Perelman did not publish in a journal. People who want to steal the credits, and tried to published first under pressure by Yau are criminals, and it is hardly for you to convince me that Zhu and Cao were not thinking about the 1 million prize with their "first complete publication". Please respond accordingly, if not, I shall insert information of this scandal in the main entry. The scandal is huge enough, so that all China knows Zhu and Cao as "discoverors" and Yau claimed that Perelman's contribution is say "25%" and over "50%" by Cao and Zhu. Let us not be hypocrats, and let us honestly defend Perelman. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Danko Georgiev MD, as far as I know, the consensus in the world and in the wikipedia is that Bruce Kleiner and John Lott's paper was the first publication confirming the correctness of Perelman's proof (in May, 2006), then followed by Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu (in June) and John Morgan and Gang Tian (in July). Related wikiarticles, including this one, correctly describe the fact in a WP:NPOV manner, while wikipedia's purpose is to describe reliably sourced facts in an NPOV manner. If you want to incriminate anybody, then you should do it properly. From what I read, Yau did say the Chinese equivalence of the quoted "for crowning achievement", "first complete proof" and "first complete publication". I consider these quotes as with reliable sources. But for a counter-example, I don't see a reliable source saying that Yau did the 25%, 50%, 25% job allocation (What I heard was that some news reporters transformed Yau's original words, and Yau's original words gave Richard Hamilton more credits. Yau always gives Richard Hamilton lots of credits. The percentages you quoted are unreliably sourced.) If you do have a reliable source about your claim, you may consider change the article "Shing-Tung Yau" at first, because I don't see nothing there which can match what you said. And as a summary, I need to make 2 remarks. The first remark is that Yau is a human being who can have his personal opinions. You may disagree with anybody's personal opinion, but I don't see the need to incriminate somebody just by his personal opinions. This goes too far. The second remark is in this wikipedia you need to follow wikipolicies, not your personal anger or POVs.--Jiejunkong 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, where do you get the idea Yau is "hoping for the 1 million prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute"? I don't remember anything I read matching the idea. I read reports in original Chinese words of Yau and I don't see any such connotation in all reports. After the sentences in Chinese language are translated into English or Russian or Bulgarian, the meaning may be changed and unexpected connotations appear.

My observation is that Yau both acted and spoke in a perfect manner in the English-speaking world. From what I read, Yau voted for Perelman to get Fields Medal and said nothing wrong when he spoke in English language (otherwise, can you show us what's wrong in Yau's sayings in English? It must originally be in English, not a translation because as I will show below that translations are tricky). Yau is also a Fields Medal winner and he is not as stupid as you described above. Be careful of motion pictures you have watched.
What Yau exactly said in original Chinese is the word “封顶” (as used in nowadays China's booming construction market, to roof over a new building). After translation, the subtle difference between "to roof over" and "to crown" is hard to notice and Yau's subtlety in word choice is totally gone.
It seems that he is a stupid villain in your eyes. Do you think he is that stupid? Mark this remark: Yau has not made one mistake when speaking to the English-speaking world (and I think the only mistake he made in the Chinese-speaking world is the percentage comments you mentioned above if reliable sources can confirm that Yau did make these percentage allocation comments). To win the 1 million prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute"? Remember, this must go through the English-speaking world. You think Yau will make that kind of mistake? My remark is that either he is crazy or it is your imagination. Finally, I have to point out that I don't know Yau and the above remarks are only my personal opinions.--Jiejunkong 05:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jiejunkong, thank you for your kind reply! I just want to point out that I have not based by opinion except on [1] original paper by Cao and Zhu, see my comments, and excerpts from their paper posted at Talk:Grigori Perelman and [2] interviews with Perelman in Russian. All the other information about the 1 million prize is just 2+2=4 such as [1] Clay institute has a rule for peer-reviewed paper, and [2] the Zhu and Cao FIRST PEER-REVIEWED paper by YAU, contains the phrases "crowning achievement", "first complete proof". Please note that these are NOT wrong Chinese-to-English translation, these are WORDS NOT by Yau, but WORDS by ZHU and CAO!!! Read their paper first, because from your post I conclude you have never read their original paper. The link is provided in the main article, please download the pdf and read the abstract and then introduction!! regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, reliably sourced facts should be added into wikipedia with NPOV expression. I would add the "[2] the Zhu and Cao FIRST PEER-REVIEWED paper by YAU, contains the phrases 'crowning achievement', 'first complete proof'", which are "WORDS NOT by Yau, but WORDS by ZHU and CAO". These facts are reliably sourced. But the claim on the 1 million dollar from Clay institute is not logically connected. It is a POV guess.--Jiejunkong 06:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a POV guess, it follows logically from the rules of the Clay institue. Also most of this is discussed in the article Manifold Destiny in english. Danko Georgiev MD 07:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

By logic, a lot of things will happen. Logic is not enough for incrimination. As far as I know, Yau has no power over the Clay institute. Note that everybody can think and can try, but before he/she explicitly makes direct move, how can you do the deduction for him/her? You need to solidify the claim that Yau wants to get the 1 millon dollar. This is a fairly severe charge, and circumstantial evidences are not enough. Is there any activity that explicitly connect Yau to the 1 millon dollar? Have Yau said he wanted the Clay reward in any circumstance?--Jiejunkong 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

CURRENT CAO-ZHU PDF PAPER IS FALSIFIED (oops error)

opps, the pdf is the same, sorry. All the mentioned by me derogation are in the paper, one have to search them one by one. PDF link here!

I saw your PDF falsification charges and made the following comments. Now I think Wikipedia:Assume good faith is very important.

(Don't jump to conclusions too quickly. The reliably sourced original words should be added into wikipedia with an NPOV expression. You said there are "derogations" in Cao-Zhu's paper, but I don't see obvious derogations. You need to enumerate every case with reliable source and NPOV expression. Dramatic charges should be avoided because these charges have their own flaws. For the PDF replacement, I suggest you present proofs and write the fact down, but leave the conclusions to be made by reader, not you.)--Jiejunkong 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For the "derogation" charge, you need to present your case carefully with reliable sources and don't project POV in the expression. It is not valid to say that "All the mentioned by me derogation are in the paper, one have to search them one by one." Actually one by one, you need to neutrally present two-side stories and leave the conclusions made by readers.--Jiejunkong 07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, today I am in a hurry, I have a trip to Tokyo in couple of hours. here is my quoted passages posted at Grigori perelman's talk page:

Dear wiki-editors, I was informed some months ago about the proof of Poincare's conjecture by Perelman .. At that time the Fields medal was not awarded, and I have downloaded and read in brief some passages of Zhu and Cao original paper. BUT IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER [2] (see also [3]) BOTH OF THEM CLAIM FOR PRIORITY IN PROVING THE THEOREM, AND THEY ARGUE TO BE THE FIRST PEOPLE DOING THAT, AS WELL AS EXPLICITLY STATING AT SEVERAL PLACES THAT THE PERELMAN'S PROOF IS INCOMPLETE, AND EVEN PROBABLY UNPROVABLE [FALSE] BY HIS OUTLINES GIVEN IN THE EPRINTS. They state explicitly at many places that they have completed the proof by novel approach (method) invented by them!!! So I was greatly disgusted by this fact, and now I have read in the Wiki-entry that Yau organized all this. What is more Zhu and Cao seem to reject in press that they have claimed priority for the proof and have completely underestimated Perelman's work. After seeing this public statement I decided to contribute to revealing this extremely un-ethical behaviorof Yau crew, and shortly I will post quotations from the Zhu and Cao paper. I hope that then some of wiki-editors will be able to insert them in the main article(s) [of Perelman, and/or Yau's crew]. Danko Georgiev MD 12:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are too many strong words and claims and conclusions and exclamation signs in the above paragraph, while no physical proof is presented. So I'll drop my reply.--Jiejunkong 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some preliminary citations, with specific claims in bold without commenting, the bolded passages speak of themselves:

Zhu and Cao's paper (published before awarding the Fields medal to Perelman):

ABSTRACT

"In this paper, we give a complete proof of the Poincare and the geometrization conjectures. This work depends on the accumulative works of many geometric analysts in the past thirty years. This proof should be considered as the crowning achievement of the Hamilton-Perelman theory of Ricci flow."

INTRODUCTION

"In this paper, we shall present the Hamilton-Perelman theory of Ricci ow. Based on it, we shall give the first written account of a complete proof of the Poincare conjecture and the geometrization conjecture of Thurston."

page 170

"When using the rescaling argument for surgically modified solutions of the Ricci flow, one encounters the difficulty of how to apply Hamilton's compactness theorem .. The idea to overcome this difficulty consists of two parts. The first part, due to Perelman .. The second part, due to the authors and Chen-Zhu, is to show that the surgically modified solutions are .. Perhaps, this second part is more crucial. Without it, Shi’s interior derivative estimate may not be applicable .. . We remark that in our proof of this second part ... we require a deep comprehension of the prolongation of the gluing "fine" caps for which we will use the recent uniqueness theorem of Bing-Long Chen and the second author for solutions of the Ricci ow on noncompact manifolds."

page 171

"As we pointed out before, we have 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."

Danko Georgiev MD 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I still see no obvious "derogation" from the blackened words and sentences. In academic papers, this kind of innuendo is very normal. Nobody is god so nobody is safe. From what I heard, Perelman's 3 landmark papers appeared in arXiV during 2003, and at that time based on his papers nobody could tell whether Poincare Conjecture can be called Poincare Theorem. Perelman quit from the community after sending out the 3 papers, and this opens the door to compete to reach the conclusion whether Poincare Conjecture can be called Poincare Theorem (This also opens the doors for bad-faith people to guess the motivation behind the timing of Perelman's disappearance). Cao-Zhu might overrate their own work and Yau supported them. But that is their personal opinion and you don't need to buy it (and obviously you don't buy it). If you want to incriminate them simply because of this, you perhaps have to incriminate all researchers because I can use your approach to prove that everybody is overrating his/her own work. So far I only know two real problems in Cao-Zhu's paper: (1) The peer-review process of Cao-Zhu's paper is challenged. It is said the peer-review process is too informal to be treated seriously. (2) Cao-Zhu copied a theorem from Kleiner-Lott's online manuscript posted in 2003 or 2004 and failed to give Kleiner-Lott credits by proper reference. Many people accused them of commiting plagiarism. Cao-Zhu had to make formal apology for this mistake. These are valid charges, but what you presented in above paragraph is not valid, as you want to punish people with vague and circumstantial proofs.--Jiejunkong 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, although I am not a mathematician, I was told by some mathematicians that "the geometrization conjecture of Thurston" is different from "Poincare Conjecture", so Cao-Zhu's claims on "the geometrization conjecture of Thurston" should not be confused with those on "Poincare Conjecture". So the blackened sentences on Page 170 are not to be treated as "proofs". Then the problematic places are in the Abstract, Introduction and Page 171, but those sentences are at most of self-promotion, which is not nice, but perhaps everybody does that according to my observation.--Jiejunkong 08:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jiejunkong, what you have written as valid charges against Cao and Zhu, should be incorporated, but I want to clarify last your remark on Thurston and Poincare conjecture. I have read some other people commenting on Perelman, and I have read pieces of Perelman's papers. My conclusions are that Perelman's contributions are much more than proving Thurston conjecture. Poincare conjecture is weaker thesis and follows from Thurston conjecture. Perelman himself published many interesting theorems in his 3 papers that themselves do not have link to proving the Poincare conjecture. Neither Perelman explicitly put in the title expression that he has proved Pincare conjecture. So this is evidence for great mind. Perelman proved the Thurston conjecture as a by-product while he has worked on much general problems. So my disgusting is that instead of mathematicians to be interested in the much general problems worked out by Perelman, and istead of trying to get out the most of Perelman's ideas, those corrupted scientists as *vultures* tried to get the Clay 1 million prize. So Perelman quited the mathematical society because he is disgusted by the fact the people don't want to study the mathematics, nor are interested by the discoveries he made. Everybody is focused on Poincare and the 1 million. This is a shame for humanity! Let me notice that Poincare is not the first important result by Perelman, he won numerous prizes, and even declined a prize on the basis that the jury is NOT competent to judge his work! This is amazing. And I feel great sorrow that instead of Perelman being invited to work as a professor at some nice place, and prove other important theorems, there is complete lack of interest of punishing the greedy and corrupted scientists who abuse their editorship in journals. Yes, what you said Yau has pressured for publication of Cao and Zhu, and this pressure cannot be explained because Yau wanted better peer-review, Yau wanted *first publication*, and the Clay 1 million prize is the only rational explanation. If you don't want to put fakse conclusions, then at least you should say that the rules of Clay's institute were such that only peer-reviewed publication could compete for the million prize. Only recently there is an announcement by Clay institute that maybe these rules will be changed for Perelman. And only now why realizing that 1 million is mirrage, Cao and Zhu can post millions of excuses that they did not aim at the prize, after all today is clear that Clay will never consider Cao and Zhu for the prize. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply (1) As to the connection between "the geometrization conjecture of Thurston" and "Poincare Conjecture", I don't know the technical details (since I am not a mathematician). If you know the technical details, you may add reliably sourced comments with NPOV expression into technical wikiarticles like "Poincare Conjecture". What you said in the above paragraph is not good enough to file charge against Cao-Zhu's paper (quote: "I have read some other people commenting on Perelman, and I have read pieces of Perelman's papers. My conclusions are that Perelman's contributions are much more than proving Thurston conjecture. Poincare conjecture is weaker thesis and follows from Thurston conjecture. Perelman himself published many interesting theorems in his 3 papers that themselves do not have link to proving the Poincare conjecture. Neither Perelman explicitly put in the title expression that he has proved Pincare conjecture.") As Poincare conjecture is a weaker thesis and follows from Thurston conjecture, proving the weaker Poincare conjecture doesn't mean proving the stronger Thurston conjecture. Thus from my understanding of math proofs, these two proofs are different things. (2) As far as I know, between year 2003 and July 2006, Perelman and Yau didn't have personal contact at all. Yau is not responsible for Perelman's quit. You accused Yau of trying to get the Clay 1-million award and said "those corrupted scientists as *vultures* tried to get the Clay 1 million prize. So Perelman quited the mathematical society because he is disgusted by the fact the people don't want to study the mathematics, nor are interested by the discoveries he made." This accusation against Yau is illogical. Can you provide proof to support this severe charge? I think Perelman's quit was due to some previous upsets unrelated to Yau, and perhaps against the math community in general where Yau is a little fraction (only by this argument Yau is related, but then everybody in the math community is related). If you attribute Perelman's quit in year 2003 to the July 2006 Cao-Zhu paper and Yau, it is very anachronistic and makes Yau a scapegoat of the math community in the general sense. So far Yau's real problem is only the review process of Cao-Zhu's paper, and Cao-Zhu's real problem is the nearly-identical copy of one of Kleiner-Lott's theorem. In contrast, what Yau said to public media and what Cao-Zhu claimed in the paper (except the Kleiner-Lott theorem) are open to interpretation and have no major problem. In my opinion, the hatred bred against Yau's media announcement and Cao-Zhu's paper in year 2006 is abnormal, and lots of people make the same mistake to attribute Perelman's quit from math at 2003 to Yau's 2006 announcements_{(Between 2003 and July 2006, Cao-Zhu's work and Yau's work based on Perelman's work were kept in secret without let the community know the details, so Perelman was not aware of Cao-Zhu's work until July 2006. How can he quit math in 2003 because of Cao-Zhu's work and Yau's support of Cao-Zhu's work? You tell me)} based on a likely intentional misguidance to find a scapegoat villain to glorify a hero.--Jiejunkong 19:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether Danko Georgiev is capable of understanding anything written by Perelman, Morgan, Lott, Kleiner or Yau. He is not a qualified mathematician and is merely trolling on these pages. Please ignore anything he writes. Please see the discussion pages of Florentin Smarandache to judge the low level of his mathematics. I personally know John Lott and John Morgan and fully support the continued existence of this page. Georgiev is very weak in mathematics but is a known stirrer on the web. He does not seem to be very intelligent. --Mathsci 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability Tag

It is quite strange that Danko Georgiev, who knows nothing at all about Ricci flow, presumes to intervene in mathematical wikipedia pages connected with the Poincare conjecture and Thurston's geometrization conjecture. He has no knowledge of the world of mathematics and, on the basis of his web articles on mathematics, has not yet mastered freshman calculus. Zhu is currently well-known in mathematics (he was on the list oif invitees to MSRI when I was up there). He certainly merits an entry far more than the questionable scientists or pseudo-scientists that Georgiev seems to worship. --Mathsci 18:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall not use personal offences, although I wish to use such against the vandal Mathsci. First, I have not put the notability tag. Second, I have not pretended to have knowledge in Ricci flow. And last but not least, YES I DO STAND AGAINST UNETHICAL BAHAVIOR -- AN MY QUALIFICATIONS IN ETHICS, BIOMEDICAL ETHICS, AND ETHICS IN SCIENCE ARE AT LEAST MASTER DEGREE, FOR WHICH MATHSCI OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO QUALIFICATION AT ALL. Also Mathsci not only lacks knowledge of basic ethical issues, he is exactly on the contrary highly unmoral individual who lead personal war against me against all Wikipedia rules. And YES MISTER *PRO* -- HAVING PH.D. IN MATHEMATICS DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHT TO MISBEHAVE YOURSELF. I am greatly disgusted by your non-sense posts. I am talking about ethical issues, not about the Ricci flow. p.s. The person who has inserted the notability tag can put it again -- I will support this against Mathsci reverts. Danko Georgiev MD 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you merely included a tag asking for the article to be deleted. The notability tag came from an anonymous taiwanese editor. --Mathsci 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Criminal?

On my talk page, Danko Georgiev MD refers to Xi-Ping Zhu as a criminal. This suggests a hidden agenda in his edits, completely contrary to the spirit of wikipedia biographies. On his own admission he has had no formal mathematical training and is therefore not in a position to assess research related to Hamilton and Perelman's work on Ricci flow. Master's degrees, such as my own MA from the University of Cambridge, do not confer any moral or ethical superiority on the recipient. --Mathsci 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised article by Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu

I have added the revised article from the Cornell arxiv which supersedes the original paper. This appeared some time back (December 2006) and corrected mathematical errors and misattributions. It has a new introduction and title. Danko Georgiev MD has not mentioned this document in his recent serious accusations against Zhu of criminality. Perhaps he is unaware of its existence. --Mathsci 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.