# Online References For Fields-Medalist Papers [closed]

I want to take a look at the research that Fields medalists have been awarded for. Is there a known online resource that catalogues this information? I take it that the Fields Medal can be awarded for a body of work and not necessarily for solving a singular problem (i.e. Perelman and the Poincare conjecture).

Aside from looking up each person individually, is there an online repository of selected articles and books by these researchers that encompass the thrust of their contributions? Obviously I can just look at the list of individuals on Wikipedia and go through each one, but I'm wondering if this is already curated somewhere.

• This is not a math question. Feb 12 at 0:01
• Why does everything have to be online? Consider reading proceedings of ICMs, they include overviews of FMs works. Feb 12 at 0:02
• @markvs It seems to be on-topic for this site. I submitted an edit where I added the tags "math-history" and "mathematicians". If you insist this is not about math, that's one thing, but if you're implying it's off-topic for this site, then you've got some disagreement, due to the existence of the aforementioned tags. Also, why is it not a math question? Why doesn't the topic of math, in your opinion, include those that practice it, and the history of that practice? Feb 12 at 0:08
• @user110391: there is a special site for it: hsm SE Feb 12 at 0:43
• @markvs I am aware of that, but sometimes SE sites have a little overlap. Usually in those cases, one site fits better than the other, but the question is still on-topic for either site. If you were arguing that this question, although on-topic, still ought to be posted on HSM.SE, then I wouldn't argue against you. Personally, I don't know either of these sites well enough to say which site it'd fit best on, but given the existence and usage of those tags, I find it hard to believe that this question is off-topic here. Feb 12 at 0:48
• @user110391: You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I do not find it useful or appropriate. I did express my opinion. Feb 12 at 0:51
• @markvs No, I am arguing for the sake of stating one's stances correctly. If you think this is better suited on HSM.SE $(1)$, then say that. If you think this is not a math question at all $(2)$, then say that. At first you said $(2)$, then you said $(1)$. You may think $(1) \implies (2)$, but that is wrong, as sites have overlap. I think you know this though, so I find this possibility more likely: you always meant $(1)$, and thought you summarized that by saying "this is not a math question". Thing is, that sentence means $(1)$, and $(1) \neq (2)$, nor is it even reasoned in your comment. Feb 12 at 1:02
• How is this suitable for math.meta though? Feb 17 at 8:47
• I did not particularly like this question on main, but migrating it to meta makes no sense at all. I wonder if it was intended for migration to hsm SE. Feb 17 at 11:13
• Incidentally, if you are interested in another book reference, consider reading "Modern Mathematics in the Light of the Fields Medals". It is dated, but it might be a good place to start. Feb 17 at 11:17
• @MoisheKohan depending on where one lives, there may very well be no (easy) way of accessing physical copies of such books, proceedings, etc. Feb 17 at 16:03
• @MoisheKohan These are actually online, and can be downloaded for free from then IMU's website. Offline, the 2018 proceedings costs £750, which is prohibitively expensive (although it is massive). Feb 17 at 16:04
• @user1729: These were two different sentences. I made no suggestion regarding buying any of the proceedings, I made a suggestion where to look. Feb 17 at 17:56