◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇ 丘成桐教授也应正视批评 亦建言 近来,丘成桐教授对北大的批评以及中国数学界乃至国际数学界对庞加莱猜想证明一事 的争议在媒体和网络上争议颇多。笔者注意到公众和媒体从揭露和纠正中国高等教育体 制和实践的弊端和问题的角度出发,对丘成桐教授的批评及其引发的进一步质疑给予了 极大的支持。但是在整个争议中,丘成桐教授却从未对一些关于他的批评给予过正面的 回应。笔者在此无意质疑丘成桐教授批评北大的动机,仅希望就纯粹的学术规范与道德 问题呼吁丘成桐教授予以解释和澄清。 美国数学学会会志曾刊载文章《不再猜想?对庞加莱与几何化猜想的证明正在形成一致 意见》,其中有如下叙述: “在被问及曹怀东和朱熹平的论文是否经过了通常的审稿程序时,丘成桐说这篇论文经 过了(通常的审稿程序),并评价亚洲数学期刊有很高的标准。”(Asked whether the paper had been refereed in the usual way, Yau said that it had and remarked that the Asian Journal has very high standards./www.ams.org/notices/200608/comm-perelman.pdf ) 然而《New Yorker》杂志刊登的Nasar的文章《流形的命运》曾披露:“今年4月13日, 亚洲数学期刊(A.J.M)编辑委员会的31名数学家收到了丘和主编的一封简短的e-mail ,通知他们用三天的时间考虑一篇作者为朱熹平、曹怀东,标题为“瑞奇流的哈密尔顿 -佩雷尔曼理论:庞加莱和几何化猜想”的论文,丘打算在这个刊物上发表。这个邮件没 有包含文章内容、审稿人意见以及文章摘要。至少有两个编委提出想看一下文章内容, 但被告知不能提供。4月16日,曹收到丘的消息,告诉他文章已被A.J.M接收了,文章摘 要已经公布到刊物的网站上。 ” 鉴于New Yorker的文章遭到了极大的质疑,笔者找到了向时任AJM编委的ANU的Brent教 授求证的去信和回信(作为附件列在文章最后),Brent教授认为“I think the statement is essentially correct although I can't confirm the precise numbers or dates.” (New Yorker的叙述是实质上正确的,尽管我不能确认精确的数 字或日期了),Brent教授还表示,部分地作为对此事的回应,他已辞去AJM编委一职。 (partly in reaction to this controversy, I have recently resigned from the editorial board of the AJM.) 在这件事情中,丘成桐教授存在两点问题: 第一、他未按通常的审稿程序通过曹朱两人的论文:他没有向编委们提供曹朱的论文, 甚至连摘要也没有提供;同时,他竟然要求编委在短短三天之内通过数百页的论文评 审。 第二、他在受到有关询问的时候,撒了谎,欺骗了数学工作者和公众,是不诚实的。 这两点问题已经属于严重的学术不端行为,丘成桐教授应该正视这些问题,向学术界和 公众作出解释,甚至道歉。笔者认为,这里所提到的问题属于纯粹的学术规范上的质疑 ,涉及到丘成桐教授的学术道德,不牵扯任何其他的问题。因此,请丘成桐教授给予就 事论事的解释,而不要象在媒体上那样评价他的批评者是文革作风。事实上,以“文革 作风”来摸黑批评者,不正是旧有的文革作风在新时代的翻版吗? 附件: 给Brent教授的去信 On 31/08/06, xxx wrote: > Hello Prof. Brent, > Sorry to bother you. I am just a student who read the New Yorker > article Manifold Destiny. In this article, they wrote: > > "On April 13th of this year, the thirty-one mathematicians on the editorial > board of the Asian Journal of Mathematics received a brief e-mail from Yau > and the journal's co-editor informing them that they had three days to > comment on a paper by Xi-Ping Zhu and Huai-Dong Cao titled "The > Hamilton-Perelman Theory of Ricci Flow: The Poincaré and > Geometrization Conjectures," which Yau planned to publish in the > journal. The e-mail did not include a copy of the paper, reports from referees, or an abstract. At > least one board member asked to see the paper but was told that it was not > available. On April 16th, Cao received a message from Yau telling him that > the paper had been accepted by the A.J.M., and an abstract was posted on the > journal's Web site." > > I am quite surprised and cannot believe it. Can you please tell me whether > their statement is true or not? > Thanks for reading my email. > > Yours, > > xxx > Brent教授的回信和他转发的丘成桐教授要求评委三天内通过评审的信件: Dear xxx, I think the statement is essentially correct although I can't confirm the precise numbers or dates. On 23 April 2006 I received the following email. There was no paper or even abstract attached, so it's not clear on what basis the editors were meant to comment. Since the paper was clearly not in my area I did not reply. Later I was cc-ed in some emails by other editors, but by then it was too late as it seems that the paper had already been published. By the way, partly in reaction to this controversy, I have recently resigned from the editorial board of the AJM. Yours sincerely, Richard Brent Dear Editors, The paper The Hamilton-Perelman Theory of Ricci Flow ---the Poincare and geometrization conjectures by Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu has been read by Prof. S.T. Yau and he has recommended the paper be published in the Asian Journal of Mathematics. I would be most grateful if you could send me your comments within the next three days. If no comments are received by then, the paper is considered accepted for publication. Thank you very much for your help. Very best regards, S.T. Yau Raymond Chan -- Prof R. P. Brent, ARC Federation Fellow MSI, ANU, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia rpb@rpbrent.com (XYS20060924) ◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇