2014-12-94

Discussionattention of the media, 6 naturally with a focus on theFields Medallists. Even though the interest in the prizewinners has always been a cornerstone of recent congresses(also as a vehicle to motivate the next generationof mathematicians, especially in the host country), the attentionreached even higher levels here, to the effect thatthe medallists were frequently beleaguered by a crowdof enthusiasts. As just two indicators of the general interest,one could mention more than 20,000 participants ofthe public programme (mainly from schools) and longqueues at the three autograph sessions of the Fields Medallists.A minor drawback was the fragmentation of theaccessible areas: a hierarchy of at least seven groups ofmathematicians (from the interested public and ordinaryparticipants to VIPs, all labelled by their badges) was introducedwith different rights of room access, which wereenforced by a kind but firm omnipresent security. Thisintroduced a less democratic element into the congress,somewhat contrasting its tradition of broad exchange.and James Milnor’s Abel lecture on “Topology throughoutfour centuries”, not just packed with mathematicalexcellence but also a lot of hidden humour and modestyfor his own contributions (this lecture was also a rare occasionto experience applause from the audience afterthe chair granted indefinite extra time).James Milnor and fans after the Abel lecture.Manjul Bhargava and his interviewer from the EMS Newsletteramong the crowd visiting the Artur Avila autograph session in theexhibition hall.The lectures followed the established pattern of plenarysessions in the morning and special sessions in the afternoon,the main adjustment perhaps being a tightenedschedule. E. g., the original schedule sometimes lackedbreaks when the participants had to walk longer distancesthrough the winding floors between the main lecturehall and the rooms for the parallel sessions. This was,however, a minor issue and it must be emphasised thatliterally hundreds of volunteers displayed the famousKorean hospitality and efficient service by guiding theparticipants to sometimes hidden locations and solvingall kinds of other problems. 7 Due to the growing numberof prizes, an increasing fraction of plenary slots is fixed,which makes a representative selection of speakers evenmore difficult. However, the programme committee dida very good job, which makes it a question of personaltaste to single out certain lectures. However, I would liketo mention James Arthur’s great effort of giving a surveyof the Langlands programme accessible to a broadpublic, Manjul Bhargava’s superb lecture ranging fromPlimpton 322 to the Birch–Swinnerton–Dyer conjecture,7As one would expect, there was also an ICM app keepingits users up to date with ongoing events and changes in theschedule, and of course a more than ample digital infrastructureavailable at the centre.An honorary mention should also be awarded to YitangZhang, who, being the only speaker not to rely on slides,fought bravely with modern technology – which insufficientlytried to electronically simulate a blackboard. Inthe end he succeeded triumphantly by completing his famousproof on prime pairs despite all obstacles (the congressvideo doesn’t give the full impression of his effortssince it has been cut by some minutes). 8Panels, social events, and moreBeside the lectures, the congress has also evolved intoan event that tries to give several impulses which maybe improperly addressed as mathematical politics. Whilethe IMU is certainly aware of the inherent dangers ofbeing more than just a neutral umbrella (which evenled to the dissolution of its predecessor in 1932), the organisationhas long extended its activities beyond thetraditional area of solely supervising the organisationof the congresses. 9 The mentioned activities supportingdeveloping countries are a good example, as well asthe associated International Congress of Women Mathematiciansand activities related to mathematics educationand the publication landscape. The IMU has beenparticularly successful over the last few years in raisingmoney from different sources to support these causes.A prominent example was announced at the opening: adonation from the five Breakthrough Prize winners of aconsiderable fraction of their awards (the establishment8A sad note of the congress was that due to Maryam Mirzakhani’sillness, her lecture had first to be postponed, and thencancelled.9David Mumford’s modest statement from the 1998 congressthat the IMU president holds neither an especially visible norinfluential position would not be fully adequate today.10One should also mention the Leelavati prize for math journalismhere, which was established in 2010, and given toAdrian Paenza at the closing ceremony.EMS Newsletter December 2014 37