On July 1, 2010, the Clay Mathematics Institute announced that Grigori Perelman, the Russian mathematician who had solved one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems, would not accept the $1 million award that came with it. Perelman was 44 at the time. He had posted his proof of the Poincaré conjecture on the online preprint server arXiv nearly a decade earlier, across three papers, and he has never published it anywhere else under his own name.
A century-old problem, solved in three postings
The Poincaré conjecture, formulated by the French mathematician Henri Poincaré in 1904, makes a claim about three-dimensional shapes: that any shape without holes, in a certain precise topological sense, can be continuously deformed into a sphere. It is a statement that sounds almost obvious and took just under a century to prove.
Perelman did not set out to prove Poincaré’s conjecture alone. He was completing a program begun by the American mathematician Richard Hamilton in the 1980s, which used a technique called Ricci flow to smooth out the geometry of a shape over time, the way heat diffuses across a surface. Hamilton’s approach worked in many cases but ran into unresolved technical obstacles. Perelman’s contribution was to show how to handle those obstacles, in the process proving the broader Geometrization conjecture, of which the Poincaré conjecture is a special case.
He posted the work as three papers on arXiv, the physics and mathematics preprint repository, rather than submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. The first, “The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications,” went up on November 11, 2002, and runs 39 pages. The second, “Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds,” followed on March 10, 2003, at 22 pages. The third, “Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds,” appeared on July 17, 2003, and is 7 pages. Together the three papers total 68 pages, terse even by the standards of research mathematics, and light on the intermediate steps a reader would need to check every claim.
The prize, and the refusal
The Clay Mathematics Institute, a private foundation based in the United States, had named the Poincaré conjecture one of seven Millennium Prize Problems in 2000, each carrying a $1 million award for a verified solution. Verifying Perelman’s papers took years, since the compressed arguments needed to be checked and, in places, filled in by other mathematicians before the institute’s scientific advisory board would certify the proof as complete.
The institute announced on March 18, 2010, that Perelman had been awarded the prize. It held a conference in Paris on June 8 and 9 of that year to mark the conjecture’s resolution, with a formal prize ceremony planned. Perelman did not attend, and on July 1, 2010, the institute announced that he had turned the award down. Its statement read, in part, that “Dr. Perelman has subsequently informed us that he has decided not to accept the one million dollar prize.” The institute said it would decide by that autumn how to use the money to benefit mathematics instead.
According to the institute’s then-president, James Carlson, Perelman gave no reason directly to the Clay board. He did speak to the Russian news agency Interfax, telling it he considered it unfair to be singled out for an award when he judged Richard Hamilton’s contribution to the underlying method equally significant. It was not the first prize Perelman had declined: in 2006 he had turned down the Fields Medal, mathematics’ most prestigious honor, awarded by the International Mathematical Union for his work on the same proof.
What happened to the proof after 2003
The premise that Perelman’s proof “has never appeared anywhere except those three preprints” needs a correction, and it is an important one. It is true that Perelman himself never submitted the work to a journal, never wrote a book on it, and has published nothing on the subject since 2003. In that narrow sense, his own account of the proof exists only in the three arXiv papers.
But the proof’s content did not stay confined to those pages, because other mathematicians spent years producing detailed, independently authored accounts of it. Bruce Kleiner and John Lott, then at Yale University and the University of Michigan respectively, circulated notes filling in the gaps in Perelman’s arguments starting in 2003 and eventually published a peer-reviewed version, “Notes on Perelman’s Papers,” in the journal Geometry & Topology in 2008. The two mathematicians wrote plainly that Perelman’s proofs were “concise and, at times, sketchy,” and that their notes were meant to “add missing detail,” while also flagging some incorrect or insufficient statements in the originals that they said could be repaired using Perelman’s own methods.
Separately, John Morgan and Gang Tian produced a book-length exposition, “Ricci Flow and the Poincaré Conjecture,” published by the American Mathematical Society and the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2007, working through the argument in far more detail than Perelman’s preprints supplied. A third effort, by the Chinese mathematicians Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu, appeared in the Asian Journal of Mathematics in 2006 and initially described itself as providing a “complete proof,” a claim that triggered a public dispute over credit. That dispute, and Yau Shing-Tung’s role in promoting the Cao-Zhu paper, was the subject of a widely read 2006 New Yorker feature, “Manifold Destiny,” by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber. Cao and Zhu later revised their paper’s framing to make clear that Hamilton and Perelman were the original authors of the proof and that their own contribution was expository.
So the accurate framing is this: Perelman’s own writing on the proof is confined to the three 2002-2003 preprints, and he has not returned to publish elsewhere. The proof itself, however, has been checked, elaborated, and republished in peer-reviewed form by at least three independent groups of mathematicians, which is precisely the process that let the Clay Institute certify it as correct in 2010.
A note on Perelman today
Perelman, who studied and worked at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics in St. Petersburg before resigning his position in 2005, has given very few interviews since 2010 and has not published further mathematical work. He has said little publicly about his reasoning beyond the remarks to Interfax. The Clay Mathematics Institute’s prize money, which he never collected, was redirected the following year to support a mathematics research position named after Poincaré, rather than remaining with Perelman.