# Grigori Perelman turned down million dollar prize | Joel David Hamkins and Lex Fridman

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGjNYuB_eA8
Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/CGjNYuB_eA8
Generated: 2026-01-08T05:37:45.018+00:00

---
## Quick Overview

Joel David Hamkins views Grigori Perelman's refusal of the Fields Medal and the Millennial Prize as an example of how some of the greatest scientists achieve greatness purely for the love of the art, not for external rewards like money or fame, although he personally finds the idea of winning an award appealing.

**Key Points:**
- Grigori Perelman stated regarding his refusal of the prize: "I'm not interested in money or fame. The prize is completely irrelevant to me. If the proof is correct, then no other recognition is needed."
- Hamkins suggests Perelman's case reminds observers that the greatest mathematicians and scientists pursue their work for the love of it, not for prizes or money.
- Hamkins admits he does not fully understand why Perelman would turn down the prize, comparing it to Olympic athletes dedicating their lives for a gold medal they may not be highly compensated for.
- Hamkins agrees with the sentiment of pursuing mathematics out of genuine curiosity, noting he spends his whole life thinking about compelling problems.
- The speakers joke that Hamkins does not contribute to Math Overflow for wealth or power, but for "genuine genuine curiosity."
- They humorously suggest that objective criteria for the greatest mathematician should involve a Math Overflow score, and that tenure and promotion decisions should also be based on it.

**Context:** The discussion centers on the highly publicized decision by Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman to decline both the Fields Medal and the $1 million Millennium Prize for solving the Poincaré conjecture. Joel David Hamkins shares his perspective on Perelman's motivations and the general drive behind mathematical achievement, contrasting the pursuit of pure knowledge with the attraction of external rewards like fame and money.

## Detailed Analysis

Joel David Hamkins discusses Grigori Perelman's notable refusal of significant mathematical accolades, citing Perelman's justification that he was uninterested in money or fame and that a correct proof requires no further recognition. Hamkins views this as evidence that some brilliant minds, like Perelman who solved an extremely famous and difficult problem, are driven solely by the intrinsic value of their work, much like Olympic athletes dedicated to their pursuit. While Hamkins acknowledges that prizes and fame can be useful, he believes the fundamental motivation for great mathematicians lies in the art itself. He shares a similar sentiment, stating he is a mathematician because he finds the questions compelling. The conversation then shifts to a humorous tangent regarding objective evaluation in mathematics, where Hamkins jokingly proposes using Math Overflow scores as criteria for determining the greatest mathematician and for tenure and promotion decisions, illustrating the contrast between academic metrics and genuine intellectual pursuit.

### Perelman's Stance on Recognition

- Stated he is "not interested in money or fame"
- Declared the prize "completely irrelevant" if the proof is correct
- Solved an "extremely famous and difficult problem"

### Motivation for Scientific Pursuit

- Great achievements stem from the love of the art, not prizes or money
- Compared to Olympic athletes pursuing gold medals despite low pay
- Hamkins confirms his own motivation is driven by compelling mathematical questions

### Humorous Discussion on Metrics

- Speakers joke about contributing to Math Overflow out of genuine curiosity, not for wealth or power
- Hamkins suggests using Math Overflow scores as objective criteria for evaluating mathematicians
- They jokingly advocate for basing tenure and promotion decisions on Math Overflow scores