Perelman has a mind that is capable of taking in more information than any mathematical mind that has come before. His brain is like a universal math compactor. He grasps complex problems and reduces them to their solvable essence. The problem is that he expects human beings to be similarly subject to reduction. He expects the world to function in accordance with a set of strictly laid out rules, and he cannot take in anything that does not conform to those rules. And because the world is so unruly, Perelman has had to cut off successive chunks of it.
if her book gets no deeper than that trite, reductionist, unsympathetic cliche then it doesn't sound like it's going to say much of interest about the chap. i hope she writes better about maths (but my impression from the interview is that she does not).
Yeah, she clearly has such a shallow understanding of mathematics that there is no way she can begin to appreciate what Perelman achieved or write anything intelligible about his process.
"Perelman has a mind that is capable of taking in more information than any mathematical mind that has come before" is the type of nonsense that will drive away many of the people interested in this topic.
For those interested in learning more about the character of Perleman and some of the controversy surrounding the Poincaré conjecture and it's proof, here's a great article from the New Yorker (dated Aug. 28, 2006): http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2
if her book gets no deeper than that trite, reductionist, unsympathetic cliche then it doesn't sound like it's going to say much of interest about the chap. i hope she writes better about maths (but my impression from the interview is that she does not).