The military-industrial scientific research system of the academic master.

Chang Haonan, who was far away in China, naturally didn't know that the decision he made unintentionally would cause a lot of trouble to a group of big names in the mathematics world.

In his previous life, although Perelman also published his research on arXiv, it was carried out in three batches over a period of two years.

During this period, he also gave a series of lectures on his proof process and ideas.

What is the result...

Not many people understand.

So it took nearly three more years before his proof was finally confirmed to be valid.

All in all, this actually gave the entire mathematics community a full five-year psychological buffer period.

However, this time, Chang Haonan and Perelman used another simpler but more sophisticated idea.

So much so that not only is there no five years, there is not even a five-day buffer.

From the time they sent out the paper until the review team understood it, it took just over three days.

Who can bear this?

As Valentin Benahou, who reviewed the manuscript, later said:

"It's like a nightmare. The scene I've always feared is the moment when someone else will prove the Poincare conjecture in a way that I don't understand at all."

The actual situation is even more than that -

After reading the paper, you will find that the so-called "method that I don't understand at all" is actually so simple.

But I never thought of such a simple method in the past.

This is actually a big blow to a mathematician, especially one who has studied the Poincare conjecture but failed to succeed.

Questions like “Am I really intellectually deficient?”

Anyway, it wasn’t until a week later that Chang Haonan, who had finally had a rest, saw it on the news—

The review team, consisting of a long list of well-known names such as Michael Friedman, Simon Donaldson, Edward Witten, etc., finally confirmed that the proof process of the Poincare conjecture given by Russian scholar Gregory Perelman and Chinese scholar Chang Haonan was correct.

The reporter was not polite and asked Witten directly, "Didn't you say last week that we might have to wait for several months or even years? I bought a ticket to fly back to New York from Paris after hearing that. How come the result came out in just seven days? I had to buy another ticket to fly back."

It is quite interesting to see a serious math expert being criticized and not knowing how to answer for a while...

Of course, this is more of a joke and not directed at Witten.

After all, it has only been a few years since Wiles solved Fermat's Last Theorem, and many people still remember the dramatic situation that happened at that time.

Wiles announced the proof of the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture in June 1993, but it was soon discovered that his construction of the Euler system had serious flaws, so the Kolyvakin-Fletcher method was not applicable in the scenario at the time.

In December of that year, Wiles publicly acknowledged that there were problems with the certification, but promised to resolve them as soon as possible.

However, mathematical things cannot be solved just by saying so.

In August 1994, Wiles even publicly admitted that his proof had failed.

However, it was at this moment that the story of escaping from desperate situation happened.

A month later, Wiles had a flash of inspiration while reviewing his failed experiment and finally filled the gap in the proof.

Finally, in 1995, Wiles' proof was officially recognized and published.

The whole process was full of twists and turns and took nearly two years in total.

Therefore, most media reporters who are a little more serious know that the estimate made by Witten before was actually normal.

What's abnormal is this time.

So the focus quickly shifted to Andrew Wiles.

Although he was not directly involved in the review process of the paper, he was the first person to stand up and disclose the relevant events to the public at the Millennium Mathematics Conference.

……

"Professor Wiles, we still remember that the process of proving Fermat's Last Theorem was quite... tortuous. So, what do you think of the fact that the mathematics community announced the proof of the Poincare conjecture in just seven days?"

Faced with this question, Andrew Wiles shook his head helplessly, revealing a "numb" expression.

He swore that he had originally just wanted to see the fun of Arthur Jeff and the Clay Mathematics Institute.

What is the result...

Lezi did see it.

But he is not a spectator, but a performer...

But regardless, the question still needs to be answered.

Wiles sighed softly and leaned over to the microphone:

"I think this is the charm of mathematics. You never know whether you will have a flash of inspiration in the next second, and you never know whether it will take you 10 minutes or 10 years to understand a problem..."

"In terms of results, there is actually no difference between the two, so we might as well pay more attention to the process. One week is certainly very enjoyable, but from another perspective, a longer process may also help us gain a more complete understanding..."

"..."

Wiles exhausted almost all of his life's literary accomplishments and finally came up with an answer that did not violate mathematical principles but could also make up for what happened back then.

As soon as he finished speaking, he heard Kong Cevic complaining next to him:

"Don't listen to Andy's words. When he officially admitted that he had failed, his expression was as if he was facing the end of the world. He even thought about how to write an apology letter..."

There was a good-natured laugh at the scene -

If Wiles is ultimately proven to be a failure, then this is definitely a malicious act by someone exposing his shortcomings.

But he succeeded in the end, and these became anecdotes that could be used for mutual jokes.

A little embarrassing at best...

After a short episode, the topic quickly returned to the Poincare conjecture.

"This time you only took one week to prove that the proof of the Poincare conjecture was correct. Does this mean that the difficulty of solving this conjecture is lower than that of some other well-known mathematical problems?"

This is a question that many people like to hear.

As a result, Valentin Benahou almost jumped up on the spot.

The old man has spent most of his life trying to solve the Poincare conjecture. If this thing is easy, then he would...

"Of course not! Absolutely not!"

Benahu frowned:

"In fact, it is difficult to directly compare the difficulty of mathematical problems in different fields, but as far as the Poincare conjecture is concerned, I can say this..."

Having said that, he paused, took a deep breath, and calmed down a little:

"The Poincare conjecture, at least so far, remains the only key to our understanding of high-dimensional space..."

……

As time went on, the reporters' questions became more pointed:

"It is said that the author of this paper did not submit the article to any mathematics journal, but chose to make it public to the world directly on a website?"

"Yes."

“So, does this mean that existing academic rules may be challenged?”

This question was indeed a bit sensitive, so that the originally relaxed atmosphere on the scene suddenly became tense.

After a few seconds, Friedman, who first proposed to include the arXiv website in the standardized citation system, nodded:

"In fact, if we follow past academic practices, then articles on preprint websites cannot be considered papers because they can be published without review."

"but……"

He changed the subject again:

"Since it has now been examined and approved by the mathematics community, there is nothing wrong with calling it a paper... As for the challenge you mentioned, we prefer to view this incident as an opportunity, an opportunity to promote academic openness and equality."

“Therefore, we are also considering how to incorporate this paper into the academic system…”

The reporter just now was obviously not going to give up easily:

“Does this mean that in the future, articles published by others on the arXiv website can also be regarded as academic papers?”

Faced with this question, several people interviewed on the stage laughed.

After looking at each other for a few times, it was Edward Witten who spoke:

"Yes."

"If they can also prove the Poincare conjecture."

The scene burst into laughter again...

In fact, if we consider it from the perspective of academic journals, booksellers, and even many researchers, then what Chang Haonan and Perelman did has indeed greatly damaged their interests.

Because what the reporter just said is right.

This is challenging the existing academic rules and breaking the academic monopoly formed by publishing houses and some research institutions.

Although the term "academic monopoly" has been completely discredited due to the constant shouting of amateur scientists.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Especially after the end of the Cold War, it has been unprecedentedly strengthened.

In fact, this itself is a kind of invisible hegemony.

but……

There is really no way this time.

The challenger is too strong...

Most papers need to be recognized by journal editors and peers to prove their academic value.

As for this paper, peers and journal editors need to find a way to recognize it in order to prove its academic value.

This is like -

Why must Einstein be awarded the Nobel Prize even if he discovered the photoelectric effect in a roundabout way?

Because if an award that includes physics doesn't even win Einstein, it will most likely be considered a fake award...

"Professor Benahu just said that the Poincare conjecture is the only possible key to our understanding of high-dimensional space. Now that this conjecture has been proven, does it mean that we may soon make a leap forward in application, or at least in basic physics? Is it possible to give birth to a new technological revolution?"

The questioner this time was a female reporter from Wired magazine.

As a media outlet that mainly focuses on new industries and new technologies, they are obviously more concerned about whether this achievement can bring about any real impact.

It’s best to be the kind that you can see business opportunities in.

"I'm sorry, but you may be disappointed."

Richard Hamilton shook his head:

“This paper does involve a series of new topological tools, but it is difficult for us to use them to solve theoretical problems in other fields in a short period of time, let alone put them into practical applications…”

He hesitated:

"I think you should ask the two authors to verify this question."

"..."

The reporter thought to himself, if I could contact those two, why would I bother to block you guys here...

At the same time, 1.2 kilometers away.

Chang Haonan, who was watching the live press conference on TV in Beijing, suddenly received a series of system prompts.

[Gain theoretical level experience: 100000]

[Theoretical level: LV4: 20000/1000000]

[Theoretical science is the most powerful weapon for understanding the world. Therefore, after your theoretical level reaches LV4, when you study an unknown phenomenon within your ability, there is a certain probability that you can see through its essence.]

???

Chang Haonan was originally half-lying on the sofa in a rather awkward posture, but now he suddenly sat up.

It is expected that the theoretical level will be improved after solving the Poincare conjecture.

But the latter one... maybe it can be called a passive skill.

It was indeed a pleasant surprise.

In particular, Chang Haonan is not a pure mathematician like Perelman.

He wants to do a project.

Behind the project, there are many scientific principles that cannot be fully explained.

Therefore, this ability, even if it only has a "certain probability", will inevitably bring huge benefits to research efficiency.