REPLY of A.T.Fomenko (January 2014) on the article of Novikov «Chronicle of the Time of Troubles»
The next comment was written in 2014. I don't want to recall some issues and evidences of the past, but sometimes have to for the purposes of fairness. The issue is that at the end of 2013 Novikov published an article «Chronicle of the Time of Troubles» about the reform of the RAS, where he again (again and again during many years) included comments to my address, not corresponding to reality.
It is worth saying that Novikov undeservedly hit on different famous scientists. For example, he wrote in his article «Mathematics and history» (Priroda, 1997, № 2): «I studied topology on the seminar of Postnikov starting from 1956. At that time he was very competent in this field, but just in two years we understood, that Postnikov (who was just 30) is a brilliant scientist already in past». In his another article «Mathematicians – Herostratuses of history?» Novikov adds one more phrase about his teacher: «Seems his soul searched new way, sought for shine of new fame. And he found himself a new way by 1967 — morozovshina». In 2013 Novikov continues to insist: «I was not bred in a nursery of an outstanding teacher» (Interview of Novikov «Vision of mathematics», Internet, Polit.ru, 2013).
Many times in my presence Novikov contemptuously told to colleagues about his scientific supervisor M.M.Postnikov that he couldn't teach him anything, and because of this Novikov learned mathematics himself. That time I trusted Novikov, but I was surprised why Novikov many times underlines these thoughts in conversations with colleagues. He even published this later in his memories. A question appears: if his supervisor Postnikov, a brilliant topologist, awardee of Lenin award could teach Novikov mathematics or he couldn't? I don't know the answer, but I have no doubts about excellent teaching and lecturer qualities of Postnikov. Many students, postgraduate students and mathematicians in general studied topology listening to Postnikov.
Let's return to the statement of Novikov: «I was not bred in a nursery of an outstanding teacher». By this he told, that not only Postnikov, but also the parents of Novikov didn't play any role in his scientific education. So it is possible to say that he grew by himself, when no other Soviet or Russian mathematician was educated in such a nice mathematical environment and had such support since childhood, like Novikov. His father was academician P.S. Novikov, mother professor L.V.Keldysh was a very strong mathematician, uncle academician M.V.Keldysh was not only an outstanding scientist, but the President of the AS USSR. Actually Novikov was born and educated in a mathematical nursery, which was grown in his time by academician N.N.Luzin. Mother and father of Novikov were from the school of N.N.Luzin.
Many unfair fantasies about allegedly «scientific inconsistency or primitivity, falseness» S.P. Novikov distributed about different great mathematicians. If desired, their names could be found in memories, many publicistic articles and interviews of Novikov.
Once I asked myself – what else reasons Novikov could have for such insistent behaviour? And I noted one important circumstance.
As Novikov writes in his memories «My stories»: «At the elections to the Academy in 1966 Vinogradov and Pontryagin supported me», p.29.
Andin fact my elder colleagues in the Academy, for example, S.M.Nikolskiy , P.S.Alexandrov told me, that I.M.Vinogradov did much for election of Novikov to correspondent members of the AS USSR in 1966. Correspondent member A.V.Bitsadze also publically told about this extraordinary support on the General meeting of the Academy of Sciences: «Vinogradov wrung hands to all of us for Novikov». And in some time Novikov instead of gratitude started to hit on Vinogradov. Including his recent publicistic article of 2013 «Chronicle of the Time of Troubles», in which Novikov told about Ivan Matveevich Vinogradov like this: «… bearers of considerable piece of meanness like Vanyka…», p.14. It appears that to become for Vinogradov the main candidate to become correspondent member it was necessary to pass a «candidate minimum» on the topic, which Novikov implies here, calling him a rascal (see about Vinogradov Interview of Novikov «Vision of mathematics», Internet, Polit.ru, 2013). But probably there was no need to pass, but it was enough that Novikov with his associate P.L.Ulyanov, «defended» mech-mat, as Novikov announced himself in 2013 in his interview «Vision of mathematics» (Internet, Polit.ru, 2013). Condemning rector of the A.A.Logunov for «deep absence of university intelligence and misunderstanding of the tasks of education», Novikov say regarding mech-mat: «We struggled, protested – Gelfand, me, Ulyanov and Ilyushin, a mechanic».
In1970 Novikov got Fields Medal. That year the head of the Committee on awarding the medal was Henry Cartan, and the only (!) representative of mathematicians of the USSR was I.R.Shafarevich (data about the teams of Fields committees for all the years could be found in Internet: math.ru History of mathematics). Mentioned above my elder colleagues told, that I.R.Shafarevich really did much to help Novikov get this award. The issue is that the main competitor of Novikov from the USSR that year was Arnold, and this was the last chance for Arnold (by age) to get this award. But as Arnold was a very strong candidate, one can imagine, how difficult it was for Shafarevich to provide, that Novikov got this medal. Novikov was younger and he had else possibility to pretend to this award later. And in some time Novikov instead of gratitude started to hit on Shafarevich.
M.M.Postnikov many times in my presence told to colleagues, how he learned Novikov mathematics and supervised him with respect. And Novikov in some time started to hit on him.
A.T.Fomenko created together with Novikov a book on geometry, which became famous and which already for many years is popular among mathematicians and physicians. The first basic variant of this book was written and published by us together (yet without co-author B.A.Dubrovin, with whom we wrote a later variant) in 1974 in the publishing house of the MSU and then republished in expanded form in 1987 in the publishing house Nauka (see list of my publications). Contribution of Novikov was big, but the book of 1987 was written mainly by me. And in some time Novikov started to hit on Fomenko.
What is the reason of such aggression? Probably Novikov wanted to prove to everybody (and may be first of all to himself), that «he did everything and reached everything only himself alone», without any support. Like he reached success without the help and support of, for example, Vinogradov, Shafarevich, Postnikov, Fomenko etc. He jealously «couldn't excuse» his companions in science their contribution in his growth. Here is the conclusion: it is necessary to stamp them. And more is the contribution – more accusations. But in spite of all this I am still thankful to Novikov that he promoted me for the Award of the Department of Mathematics of the Presidium of the AS USSR in 1987, actively supported me at the elections to correspondent members in 1990 and promoted me to academicians in 1991(more details see in - "How Novikov praised mathematical works of Fomenko ", as a result I was elected in 1994).
S.P. Novikov’s annoyance aimed not only at me but also at A.S. Mishchenko can apparently be explained quite easily. In my opinion, A.S. Mishchenko is more talented and versatile mathematician than S.P. Novikov. This was manifested, among other things, in their common work, which I observed repeatedly. Novikov should be grateful to his co-author Mishchenko in many respects. In addition, the following fact should be mentioned. Novikov was awarded the Fields Prize for his proof of the topological invariance of the Pontryagin rational classes (integral classes are not invariant). After some time, the well-known mathematician M. Gromov, disciple of Rokhlin, gave a simpler and a more visual proof of this theorem (M.Gromov, “Positive Curvature, Macroscopic Dimension, Spectral Gaps and Higher Signatures,” Functional Anal. on the Eve of 21-st Century, v.II. Progress in Math., Basel-Boston: Birkhauser, Vol.132, (1995)). As a matter of fact, the radical simplification of Novikov’s main theorem was obtained, in particular, owing to the works of Mishchenko used by Gromov. As a result, a new trend was developed. This was mentioned by Mishchenko more than once at seminars. Later, Mishchenko described the general pattern that has become quite clear in his review “Hirzebruch Formula: 45Years of History and State-of-the-Art” at the conference Topology and Dynamics: Rokhlin Memorial (August 19--25, 1999). Novikov was quite upset over these unexpectedly brilliant results in general and especially over the fact that the invariance of Pontryagin rational classes was proved in a much simpler way. All this apparently explains why S.P. Novikov left no stone unturned to prevent the election of A.S. Mishchenko to the Russian Academy of Sciences. Whenever Mishchenko’s candidature was proposed for election to the RAS by various Academicians including myself, Novikov categorically declared during discussions before the vote that Mishchenko is just his disciple and not worthy of being elected to the Academy, adding that Mishchenko had already been “dead and buried.” Unfortunately, this scenario was repeated more than once.
Earlier, I mentioned N.N. Luzin, the teacher of P.S. Novikov (S.P. Novikov’s father). In this connection, it is appropriate to mention a large article by S.S. Demidov and V.D. Esakov “Academician N.N. Luzin’s Case” in Collective Memory of Scientific Community, which was published in St. Petersburg in 1999 and can be found in Internet (//russcience.euro.ru/papers/dees99dl.htm). The article contains important documents elucidating vociferous persecution of N.N. Luzin in 1936, in which some of his disciples unfortunately took an active part (see the article for details). In particular, Luzin was accused of “persecution of his brilliant and untimely expired pupil M.Ya. Suslin (1894—1919) and appropriation (by Luzin—A.F) of his results, as well as some ideas of another pupil (P.S. Novikov).” By the way, P.S. Novikov (father of S.P. Novikov) did not appear at the court during the trial, although his name was frequently mentioned in accusations against Luzin. In particular, according to the shorthand record of the hearing cited by S.S. Demidov and V.D. Esakov, “the issue of plagiarism was mentioned by S.L.Sobolev, who emphasized the story of P.S. Novikov’s results (“This matter is definitely unethical and I do not want to conceal it.”)
See also my replies on the comments of Novikov on the first page of the site chronologia.org, in the section «Replies to critics».
A.T. Fomenko.
January 12, 2014
