# DZB (Emory) to Amherst

1. Top Mathematician
wiyt
[...]

Grouping DZB with the other two is pretty insane, since he isn't in any way a lemon?

Also wasn't DZB Ken Ono student lol

What? Totally wrong part of math.

DZB was really a Bjorn Poonen student, but since Poonen moved to MIT partway through his graduate studies Brian Conrad took over some of the advising duties.

1 weekwiyt
Quote 3 Up 0 Down Report
2. Top Mathematician
keuq

Brian Conrad's group = lemon factory. David Zureick-Brown, Evan Warner, Alessandro Maria Masullo... The parade of lemons just keep going.

seems like it's more of a number theory thing than a bc one..

1 weekkeuq
Quote 0 Up 0 Down Report
3. Top Mathematician
qmqs

Speaking of, anyone know what happened to EW? He was a postdoc at columbia for 5 years, no longer listed there.

Evan Warner was a Ritts Assistant Professor at Columbia for 5 years and didn't publish anything. In fact, there's no evidence that he even obtained PhD from Stanford. On his old webpage, he kept saying that his PhD thesis is being revised. Yet, to this day, a search at Stanford Library returns nothing. (Even Alessandro Masullo eventually submitted his thesis, which is available at Stanford Library.)

The only reason Columbia would even give the Ritts AP position to EW was the influence of Brian Conrad, who oversold his student. After the Masullo affairs, we know this is not an isolated incident.

To be fair, BC had some good students. Tong Liu is good. Zavyalov seems to be very promissing. But those are rather the exceptions.

1 weekqmqs
Quote 2 Up 0 Down Report
4. Top Mathematician
totj

Speaking of, anyone know what happened to EW? He was a postdoc at columbia for 5 years, no longer listed there.

Evan Warner was a Ritts Assistant Professor at Columbia for 5 years and didn't publish anything. In fact, there's no evidence that he even obtained PhD from Stanford. On his old webpage, he kept saying that his PhD thesis is being revised. Yet, to this day, a search at Stanford Library returns nothing. (Even Alessandro Masullo eventually submitted his thesis, which is available at Stanford Library.)

The only reason Columbia would even give the Ritts AP position to EW was the influence of Brian Conrad, who oversold his student. After the Masullo affairs, we know this is not an isolated incident.

To be fair, BC had some good students. Tong Liu is good. Zavyalov seems to be very promissing. But those are rather the exceptions.

Hey give the guy a chance, maybe if he spends 5 more years as a BP fellow at Harvard he'll write something.

1 weektotj
Quote 1 Up 0 Down Report
5. Top Mathematician
tgke

Speaking of, anyone know what happened to EW? He was a postdoc at columbia for 5 years, no longer listed there.

Evan Warner was a Ritts Assistant Professor at Columbia for 5 years and didn't publish anything. In fact, there's no evidence that he even obtained PhD from Stanford. On his old webpage, he kept saying that his PhD thesis is being revised. Yet, to this day, a search at Stanford Library returns nothing. (Even Alessandro Masullo eventually submitted his thesis, which is available at Stanford Library.)

The only reason Columbia would even give the Ritts AP position to EW was the influence of Brian Conrad, who oversold his student. After the Masullo affairs, we know this is not an isolated incident.

To be fair, BC had some good students. Tong Liu is good. Zavyalov seems to be very promissing. But those are rather the exceptions.

Not true, here is Evan’s thesis: https:// searchworks. stanford. edu/view/12135003

1 weektgke
Quote 4 Up 0 Down Report
6. Top Mathematician
qmqs
[...]

Evan Warner was a Ritts Assistant Professor at Columbia for 5 years and didn't publish anything. In fact, there's no evidence that he even obtained PhD from Stanford. On his old webpage, he kept saying that his PhD thesis is being revised. Yet, to this day, a search at Stanford Library returns nothing. (Even Alessandro Masullo eventually submitted his thesis, which is available at Stanford Library.)

The only reason Columbia would even give the Ritts AP position to EW was the influence of Brian Conrad, who oversold his student. After the Masullo affairs, we know this is not an isolated incident.

To be fair, BC had some good students. Tong Liu is good. Zavyalov seems to be very promissing. But those are rather the exceptions.

Not true, here is Evan’s thesis: https:// searchworks. stanford. edu/view/12135003

Then, we take back the claim about non-submittal of thesis. It remains true that EW didn't publish anything.

1 weekqmqs
Quote 1 Up 0 Down Report
7. Top Mathematician
qmqs
[...]

Evan Warner was a Ritts Assistant Professor at Columbia for 5 years and didn't publish anything. In fact, there's no evidence that he even obtained PhD from Stanford. On his old webpage, he kept saying that his PhD thesis is being revised. Yet, to this day, a search at Stanford Library returns nothing. (Even Alessandro Masullo eventually submitted his thesis, which is available at Stanford Library.)

The only reason Columbia would even give the Ritts AP position to EW was the influence of Brian Conrad, who oversold his student. After the Masullo affairs, we know this is not an isolated incident.

To be fair, BC had some good students. Tong Liu is good. Zavyalov seems to be very promissing. But those are rather the exceptions.

Hey give the guy a chance, maybe if he spends 5 more years as a BP fellow at Harvard he'll write something.

I know you wrote this in jest :) But in reality there are many cases of prestigious postdoc positions given to mediocre candidates due to influences of powerful advisors. This squeezes out more deserving candidates, some might quit academia because of it. I think this is grossly unfair.

1 weekqmqs
Quote 4 Up 0 Down Report
8. Top Mathematician
dzwz
[...]

Hey give the guy a chance, maybe if he spends 5 more years as a BP fellow at Harvard he'll write something.

I know you wrote this in jest :) But in reality there are many cases of prestigious postdoc positions given to mediocre candidates due to influences of powerful advisors. This squeezes out more deserving candidates, some might quit academia because of it. I think this is grossly unfair.

Why is BC influential? He's not even good. It was astonishing that he was editor of JAMS at some point.

1 weekdzwz
Quote 4 Up 7 Down Report
9. Top Mathematician
dmsm

I understand that people have different standards. But to call BC “not even good” transcends internet trolling and/or ironic delusion and is squarely in the territory of raw, unfiltered stupidity of the lowest order.

1 weekdmsm
Quote 11 Up 1 Down Report
10. Top Mathematician
ehtl

I mean technically he is or perhaps used to be (see AMM) good. But it’s true he never had a serious big idea of his own.

He could very well be at a lower ranking dept.

1 weekehtl
Quote 5 Up 4 Down Report
11. Top Mathematician
totj
[...]

Hey give the guy a chance, maybe if he spends 5 more years as a BP fellow at Harvard he'll write something.

I know you wrote this in jest :) But in reality there are many cases of prestigious postdoc positions given to mediocre candidates due to influences of powerful advisors. This squeezes out more deserving candidates, some might quit academia because of it. I think this is grossly unfair.

Oh I know, didnt bring up BP for nothing. FG (barghava student) became a BP fellow with only his thesis as a preprint. Ended up doing nothing and became a lecturer.

1 weektotj
Quote 2 Up 0 Down Report
12. Top Mathematician
ongl

I understand that people have different standards. But to call BC “not even good” transcends internet trolling and/or ironic delusion and is squarely in the territory of raw, unfiltered stupidity of the lowest order.

OK big guy. Other than modularity where BC was probably not the main contributor what are BCs main contribution? He's like a narrow technician. He has no top 5 other than modularity.

1 weekongl
Quote 3 Up 5 Down Report
13. Top Mathematician
ehtl

He is indeed just a technician. A well connected one, which settled his fat ass in Stanford.

1 weekehtl
Quote 4 Up 1 Down Report
14. Top Mathematician
wuhs

He is indeed just a technician. A well connected one, which settled his fat ass in Stanford.

How does Sitzfleisch factor into these decisions? It would help in those long faculty meetings, but would also need to be compatible with the named chair.

1 weekwuhs
Quote 1 Up 0 Down Report
15. Top Mathematician
qmqs
[...]

I know you wrote this in jest :) But in reality there are many cases of prestigious postdoc positions given to mediocre candidates due to influences of powerful advisors. This squeezes out more deserving candidates, some might quit academia because of it. I think this is grossly unfair.

Why is BC influential? He's not even good. It was astonishing that he was editor of JAMS at some point.

Conrad is known for his mastery of certain technical aspects in algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory. The community consults with him when they encounter those aspects in their research. In that sense, he is a very useful contributor to the field. (Think of someone like Ofer Gabber, who is highly regarded for his expertise in technical things.)

But let's also not forget that Breuil-Conrad-Diamond-Taylor on modularity in Q, and a couple of related works, are landmark papers in algebraic number theory that greatly influenced the field for 20 years.

1 weekqmqs
Quote 8 Up 0 Down Report
16. Top Mathematician
ocby

There is actually a DBZ at UT Austin and he's pretty great

I thought he is at Bonn.

Different DBZ from the one at Bonn.

1 weekocby
Quote 0 Up 0 Down Report
17. Top Mathematician
ocby

Why is BC influential? He's not even good. It was astonishing that he was editor of JAMS at some point.

He was in the right place at exactly the right time with the right advisor, has been energetic about doing "plumbing" of various sorts -- teaching, exposition, editing, rewriting old work in modern formalism -- that make him a reliable workhorse wherever hired and within the field.

Conrad is known for his mastery of certain technical aspects in algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory. The community consults with him when they encounter those aspects in their research. In that sense, he is a very useful contributor to the field. (Think of someone like Ofer Gabber, who is highly regarded for his expertise in technical things.)

He is nowhere Gabber's level of ability or accomplishment. BC would have landed at a top 30-40 place if not for getting in on the ground floor of the Wiles modularity industry.

I happen to like his pseudoreductive groups work, which is finally his own stuff rather than polishing other people's machinery, and many of his undergrad expositions are very well done. But that is not the kind stuff that normally gets tenure at Stanford.

1 weekocby
Quote 13 Up 0 Down Report
18. Top Mathematician
eewq

It is funny that the truth about BC is finally being discussed honestly. Indeed, he is an excellent technician, but aside from the modularity stuff his work is of narrow interest and lacks exciting ideas. People are very respectful of him, but you can't say with a straight face that he's been influential.

Gabber is both technically amazing and full of original ideas: his proof of purity for intersection cohomology, and his work on local uniformization and finiteness theorems for etale cohomology of excellent schemes, are both incredible achievements, just to pick two off the top of my head.

1 weekeewq
Quote 7 Up 0 Down Report
19. Top Mathematician
wwsy

most people don't really have the whole package (technique + creative vision)

but is it really bad to only be 90% technician? it seems like good collabs could come from technical contributions, just by observing how the 'creatives' operate...

1 weekwwsy
Quote 2 Up 0 Down Report
20. Top Mathematician
eewq

most people don't really have the whole package (technique + creative vision)

but is it really bad to only be 90% technician? it seems like good collabs could come from technical contributions, just by observing how the 'creatives' operate...

No, it's not bad. And I'm sure Conrad played an important role in the modularity stuff, simply by having enough stamina to carefully do disgusting near-impossible calculations with Breuil modules. That's a real contribution!

1 weekeewq
Quote 2 Up 0 Down Report
Your screen is so tiny that we decided to disable the captcha and posting feature
Store settings & IDs (locally, encrypted)
Formatting guidelines: Commonmark with no images and html allowed. $and$\$ for LaTeX. Input previewed in last post of thread. For a link to be allowed it must include the http(s) tag and come from the list of allowed domains.