李敖说：“马英九有一个去世的爸爸叫马鹤凌，另外有两个活的爸爸，一个叫做美国民主党，一个叫做美国共和党。今天这么下贱，美国官员这样羞辱我们，居然马英九还说国民党政策不受影响。今天报纸上还说，他（马英九）要在这个会期上推动（军购）。美国人说你秋天不买，就买不到了，这是共和党爸爸讲的话，11月7日改选之后，民主党如果当家，民主党爸爸会卖给马英九，所以我觉得不要这么下贱。”

RT

....“匈奴未灭他先灭，内阁未倒阳先倒，这是什么在野党？马儿漂亮不会跑。”李大师作的打油诗，就是批国民党对倒阁案“放水”，否决亲民党提的倒阁案。

除作打油诗，李敖还自己编了个黄色笑话揶揄马英九。他说，“小马哥跟一个女记者说，其实我也很喜欢妳，女记者说真的吗？小马哥说真的，小马哥说我不但喜欢妳，我昨天晚上做梦还梦到妳，记者说梦到我什么？梦到妳把妳衣服脱光了，那记者高兴地要死，说后来呢？后来我就吻妳、亲吻妳、KISS妳，那记者说后来呢后来呢？后来我就醒了，梦就醒了，记者哭起来了，说你只要吻我一下，你脱我衣服干什么？这就是小马哥对不对？你根本你不要倒阁嘛！”

....

 

这个操蛋世界，也就他还算个人物了

 

Xiaqi Ding, C.U.N.Y. Member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, responds to the New Yorker article

Oct. 10, 2006

Dear Mr. Cooper,

The New Yorker published a long article entitled "Manifold Destiny? A legendary problem and the battle over who solved it" on August 28, making unbridled humiliations and personal attacks on an international highly prestige and academically achieved mathematician Dr. Shing-Tung Yau. This has never happened before in the academic history, and I must say the article makes the American mathematical community shameful. Authors S. Nasar and D. Gruber of the article interviewed many people. Unfortunately most of the interviewees are not experts on this field regarding the Poincare conjecture （the authors are surely non-experts）. Two of the most important experts, R. Hamilton and G. Huisken, who have made fundamental contributions and have the authority to speak about Poincare conjecture, were not interviewed and their opinions were not published in the article. There is a cartoon in the article. It says Dr.Yau wanted to take the Perelman's Fields Medal. This is an absurd joke. Dr. Yau has received Fields Medal more than 20 years ago at 1983. He has received Veblen Price in geometry because of his remarkable achievements on geometrical analysis, California Scientist of the Year in 1979 and National Medal of Science, etc. Most importantly, he has also received Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, awarded every 7 years, specifically designed to amend the absence of a mathematics equivalent for the "Nobel Prize" every year. Is he really concerned that a young archived mathematician receives the Fields Medal? He is more than 50 years old and already way past the official age to receive the Fields Medal. Even his students Huai-Dong Cao and Xi-Ping Zhu are over 40 years old. Whom does he want to receive the Field Medal? Richard Hamilton said about Dr. Yau: on the contrary, "Far from stealing credit for Perelman's accomplishment, he has praised Perelman's work and joined me in supporting him for the Fields Medal". From all these facts, The New Yorker article is not telling the truth.

As R. Hamilton recalls, Dr. Yau has pointed out that mathematician can use the Ricci flow to prove Poincare conjecture at the beginning of its creation. He has all along promoted and organized such research until the appearance of the Zhu and Cao's summary paper. Dr. Yau has un-obliterable meritorious contributions to the proof of the conjecture and the progress of more general geometric analysis. Hamilton proposed the guiding principle, G. Perelman, which contributed the breakthrough to the carry out of such guiding principle. However, the following two points are undeniable facts:

Perelman's internet papers in 2002 and 2003 lack a full and detailed proof. So for several years and before the detailed proof of Zhu and Cao's paper published on the Asian Journal of Mathematics, no import mathematical experts can say the Poincare conjecture is correct. Zhu and Cao's three hundred pages paper is the first clear and definite proof of the Poincare conjecture. It gives a full, detailed proof （including their independent original work） and contains a more general geometrization.

From the viewpoint of a standard mathematical execuation, a mathematical theorem is established only after it is fully proved. There should be nothing less. I believe the solving of the Poincare conjecture should have the following:

Hamiltons' guiding principle

Perelman's breakthrough

Zhu and Cao's full detailed proof.

Missing any one of the above three is not the final resolution of the Poincare conjecture. Indeed, as for the big picture, people cannot solve the Poincare conjecture without Dr. Yau's support and his assembly of talented students' fundamental work.

Xiaqi Ding

Member of Chinese Academy of Sciences

Prof. Louis Nirenberg,

Courant institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University,

responds to the New Yorker article

Oct.2, 2006

Dear Mr. Cooper:

I am writing to you in regard to the New Yorker article of August 28. I was dismayed by the article's treatment of S. T. Yau.

I have known Yau since he received his Ph.D at Berkeley, and have followed his work with enormous interest and admiration — I can't keep up with all of it, especially his work connected with Physics.

Yau is an ambitious person but his primary interest is the development of Science. His devotion to it and to the people working in it can hardly be matched. Throughout his research, and that of his many students — and his famous seminar which meets several times a week for hours — he has had enormous influence on current developments in many fields of Mathematics.

In all the years I have known him I have found him to be completely honest and honorable.

When Perelman's papers appeared, I believe that Yau felt that the proofs needed further clarification, with all details spelled out. He encouraged Zhu and Cao to work through them. What they have done is extremely useful. But after Hamilton, the primary credit goes to Perelman — as Hamilton and Yau acknowledge.

In my opinion, the Clay Prize should be offered jointly to Hamilton and Perelman.

The description of Yau's behavior in the New Yorker article does not jibe with my knowledge of him. Its nasty tone is deplorable.

You may share this letter with anyone you wish.

Sincerely yours,

Louis Nirenberg

Emertus Professor

Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

New York University