14/12/2022

In Folha, Viana talks about the history of the Fields Medal.

Reproduction of Marcelo Viana's column in Folha de S. Paulo.

At the end of World War I , Europe was bitterly divided, and the world of mathematics could not remain indifferent. By decision of the International Mathematical Union, mathematicians from the defeated nations—particularly Germany —were barred from the 1920 International Congress of Mathematicians in Strasbourg. This situation persisted until the 1932 Congress in Zurich, on the eve of a new world conflict.

The 1924 Congress was supposed to be in New York, but by around 1922 it was already clear that, due to the exclusionary policy, it would not be possible to obtain funding in the United States, a country whose scientific development was closely linked to Germany.

In a critical situation, but unable to change its stance, the International Mathematical Union breathed a sigh of relief when Canadian John Charles Fields (1863-1932) offered to organize the Congress in Toronto. Fields worked tirelessly, traveling incessantly between North America and Europe, to put on an event that ultimately proved a success. Diplomatically, he avoided confronting the policy of exclusion, while simultaneously pointing out that it would have to end.

The Toronto Congress lasted six days and had 444 participants from 28 countries. No Brazilians. At the end, the delegates participated in the spectacular Continental Tour, an 18-day (!) train trip to the west coast of Canada "to see the landscape and natural resources of the country".

After the accounts were tallied, the Toronto Congress presented a balance of $2,700. At Fields' suggestion, it was decided that the majority would be used "for two medals to be awarded at subsequent International Congresses of Mathematicians".

Fields was instrumental in shaping the award. It is through his influence that the medal has an unusual purpose, quite different from the Nobel Prizes , for example: it is given "in recognition of work done, but also as an incentive for new achievements." Another point he insisted on—this time unsuccessfully—is that the prize should not bear anyone's name.

To read the full text, visit the newspaper's website.