A few years back, a prospective doctoral student sought out Sylvia Serfaty with some existential questions about the apparent uselessness of pure math. Serfaty, then newly decorated with the prestigious Henri Poincaré Prize, won him over simply by being honest and nice. “She was very warm and understanding and human,” said Thomas Leblé, now an instructor at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University. “She made me feel that even if at times it might seem futile, at least it would be friendly. The intellectual and human adventure would be worth it.” For Serfaty, mathematics is about building scientific and human connections. But as Leblé recalled, Serfaty also emphasized that a mathematician has to find satisfaction in “weaving one’s own rug,” alluding to the patient, solitary work that comes first.

Born and raised in Paris, Serfaty first became intrigued by mathematics in high school. Ultimately she gravitated toward physics problems, constructing mathematical tools to forecast what should happen in physical systems. For her doctoral research in the late-1990s, she focused on the Ginzburg-Landau equations, which describe superconductors and their vortices that turn like little whirlwinds. The problem she tackled was to determine when, where and how the vortices appear in the static (time-independent) ground state. She solved this problem with increasing detail over the course of more than a decade, together with Étienne Sandier of the University of Paris-East, with whom she co-authored the book Vortices in the Magnetic Ginzburg-Landau Model.

In 1998, Serfaty discovered an irresistibly puzzling problem about how these vortices evolve in time. She decided that this was the problem she really wanted to solve. Thinking about it initially, she got stuck and abandoned it, but now and then she circled back. For years, with collaborators, she built tools that she hoped might eventually provide pathways to the desired destination. In 2015, after almost 18 years, she finally hit upon the right point of view and arrived at the solution.

“First you start from a vision that something should be true,” Serfaty said. “I think we have software, so to speak, in our brain that allows us to judge that moral quality, that truthful quality to a statement.”

And, she noted, “you cannot be cheated, you cannot be lied to. A thing is true or not true, and there is this notion of clarity on which you can base yourself.”

In 2004, at age 28, she won the European Mathematical Society prize for her work analyzing the Ginzburg-Landau model; this was followed by the Poincaré Prize in 2012. Last September, the piano-playing, bicycle-riding mother of two returned as a fulltime faculty member to the Courant Institute, where she had held various positions since 2001. By her count, she is one of five women among about 60 full-time faculty members in the math department, a ratio she figures is unlikely to balance itself out anytime soon.

Quanta Magazine talked with Serfaty in January at the Courant Institute. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows.

QUANTA MAGAZINE: When did you find mathematics?

SYLVIA SERFATY: In high school, there was one episode that crystallized it for me: We had assignments, little problems to solve at home, and one of them seemed very difficult. I had been thinking about it and thinking about it, and wandering around trying to find a solution. And in the end I came up with a solution that was not the one that was expected — it was more general than the problem was calling for, making it more abstract. So when the teacher gave the solutions, I proposed mine as an alternative, and I think everybody was surprised, including the teacher herself.

I was happy that I’d found a creative solution. I was a teenager, and a little bit idealistic. I wanted to have a creative impact, and research seemed like a beautiful profession. I knew I was not an artist. My dad is an architect and he’s really an artist, in the full sense of the word. I always compared myself to that image: the guy who has talent, has a gift. That played a role in building my self-perception of what I could do and what I wanted to achieve.

So you don’t think of yourself as having a gift — you weren’t a prodigy.

No. We do a disservice to the profession by giving this image of little geniuses and prodigies. These Hollywood movies about scientists can be somewhat counterproductive, too. They are telling children that there are geniuses out there that do really cool stuff, and kids may think, “Oh, that’s not me.” Maybe 5 percent of the profession fits that stereotype, but 95 percent doesn’t. You don’t have to be among the 5 percent to do interesting math.

For me, it took a lot of faith and believing in my little dream. My parents told me, “You can do anything, you should go for it” — my mother is a teacher and she always told me I was at the top of my cohort and that if I didn’t succeed, who will? My first university math teacher played a big role and really believed in my potential, and then as I pursued my studies, my intuition was confirmed that I really liked math — I liked the beauty of it, and I liked the challenge.

Stefan Falke for Quanta Magazine

Video: Sylvia Serfaty explains why you don’t have to be a genius to become a mathematician.

So you have to be comfortable with frustration if you want to be a mathematician?

That’s research. You enjoy solving a problem if you have difficulty solving it. The fun is in the struggle with a problem that resists. It’s the same kind of pleasure as with hiking: You hike uphill and it’s tough and you sweat, and at the end of the day the reward is the beautiful view. Solving a math problem is a bit like that, but you don’t always know where the path is and how far you are from the top. You have to be able to accept frustration, failure, your own limitations. Of course you have to be good enough; that’s a minimum requirement. But if you have enough ability, then you cultivate it and build on it, just as a musician plays scales and practices to get to a top level.

How do you tackle a problem?

One of the first pieces of advice I got as I was starting my Ph.D. was from Tristan Rivière (a previous student of my adviser, Fabrice Béthuel), who told me: People think that research in math is about these big ideas, but no, you really have to start from simple, stupid computations — start again like a student and redo everything yourself. I found that this is so true. A lot of good research actually starts from very simple things, elementary facts, basic bricks, from which you can build a big cathedral. Progress in math comes from understanding the model case, the simplest instance in which you encounter the problem. And often it is an easy computation; it’s just that no one had thought of looking at it this way.

Do you cultivate that perspective, or does it come naturally?

This is all I know how to do. I tell myself that there are always very bright people who have thought about these problems and made very beautiful and elaborate theories, and certainly I cannot always compete on that end. But let me try to rethink the problem almost from scratch with my own little basic understanding and knowledge and see where I go. Of course, I have built enough experience and intuition that I sort of pretend to be naive. In the end, I think a lot of mathematicians proceed this way, but maybe they don’t want to admit it, because they don’t want to appear simple-minded. There is a lot of ego in this profession, let’s be honest.

Does the ego help or hinder mathematical ambition?

We do math research because we like the problems, and we enjoy finding solutions, but I think maybe half of it is because we want to impress others. Would you do math if you were on a desert island and there was no one to admire your beautiful proof? We prove theorems because there is an audience to communicate it to. A lot of the motivation is presenting the work at the next conference and seeing what colleagues think. And then people appreciate it and provide positive feedback, and this feeds the motivation. And then you may get prizes, and if so, maybe you get even more prizes because you already have prizes. And you get published in good journals, and you keep track of how many papers you published and how many citations you got on MathSciNet, and you inevitably get in the habit of sometimes comparing yourself to your friends. You are constantly judged by your peers.

This is a system that increases people’s productivity. It works very well to push people to publish and to work, because they want to maintain their ranking. But it also puts a lot of ego into it. And at some point I think it’s too much. We need to put more focus on the real scientific progress, rather than on the signs of wealth, so to speak. And I certainly think this aspect is not very female-friendly. There’s also the nerd stereotype — I don’t think of myself as a nerd. I don’t identify with that culture. And I don’t think that because I’m a mathematician I have to be a nerd.

Would more women in the field help shift the balance?

I’m not super-optimistic, in terms of women in the field. I don’t think it’s a problem that is going to naturally resolve itself. The numbers over the last 20 years are not a great improvement, sometimes even decreasing.

The question is: Can you convince men that it would really be better for science and math if there were more women around? I’m not sure they are all convinced. Would it be better? Why? Would it make their life better, would it make the math better? I tend to think it would be better.

In what way?

It’s good to have a diversity of frames of mind. Two different mathematicians think in two slightly different ways, and women do tend to think a little bit differently. Math is not about everybody staring at a problem and trying to solve it. We don’t even know where the problems are. Some people decide they are going to explore over here, and some people explore over there. That’s why you need people with different points of view, to think of different perspectives and find different roads.  

In your own work over the past two decades, you’ve specialized in one area of mathematical physics, but this has led you in a variety of directions.

It’s really beautiful to observe, as you progress in your mathematical maturity, how everything is somehow connected. There are so many things that are related, and you keep building connections in your intellectual landscape. With experience you develop a point of view that is pretty much unique to yourself — somebody else would come at it from a different angle. That’s what’s fruitful, and that’s how you can solve problems that maybe somebody smarter than you wouldn’t solve just because they don’t have the necessary perspective.

Survey: Math

Name: (optional)
Current age:
How do you feel about math?
When did you form this opinion?
What shaped your opinion? (500 character limit)

And your approach has unexpectedly opened doors to other fields — how did that come about?

One important question I had from the beginning was to understand the patterns of the vortices. Physicists knew from experiments that the vortices form triangular lattices, called Abrikosov lattices, and so the question was to prove why they form these patterns. This we never completely answered, but we have made progress. A paper we published in 2012 rigorously connected the Ginzburg-Landau problem of vortices with a crystallization problem for the first time. And this problem, as it turns out, arises in other areas of math, such as number theory and statistical mechanics and random matrices.

What we proved was that the vortices in the superconductor behave like particles with what’s called a Coulomb interaction — essentially, the vortices act like electric charges and repel each other. You can think of the particles as people who don’t like each other but are forced to stay in the same room — where should they stand to minimize their repulsion to others?

Was it difficult to cross over into a new area?

It was a challenge, because I had to learn the basics of a new subject area and nobody knew me in that field. And initially there was some skepticism about our results. But arriving as newcomers allowed us to develop a new point of view because we weren’t burdened by any preconceived notions — ignorance is helpful in this instance.

Some mathematicians, they start with something, they know how to do it, and then they create variants, like derivative products: You make the film and then you sell the T-shirts, and then you sell the mugs. I think the way that you can distinguish good mathematicians is that they are constantly moving further and forward and advancing onto new ground.

This article was reprinted on Wired.com.

View Reader Comments (12)

Leave a Comment

Reader CommentsLeave a Comment

  • Thank you Sylvia for this truly beautiful interview! I think this is great for young people, and not only for them. I wish there were more people like you in the profession.

  • Hello quanta, this article about Mathematicians and how they see Mathematics as a human activity are an inspiration to many. They cast a positive and human light on the perspective that Mathematics is done by real people who have real lives (e.g. Slyvia rides bicycles, she plays piano), unlike the stereotypes encouraged by the media of lone savant like geniuses (of which as Sylvia mentioned there are about 5%), which by the way turns off the public at large in the pursuit of Mathematics. I enjoyed this as much as I enjoyed the one about Steven Su.

  • Nice article, I think that there are many other perspectives out there. It would be interesting to learn more.

  • A good point on the importance of diversity. The value of diversity is confirmed in the Bayesian model of learning. Natural selection may be seen as a learning process that follows the mathematics of Bayesian inference and Fisher's 'first law of natural selection' states the rate of evolution is proportional to the variance traits in a population. This is as true with the evolution of science and mathematics as it is with biological evolution.

    A second point I appreciate is the push back on the notion that geniuses are likely weirdos and the negative effect on aspirations this has for those entering the field. We get too many portrayals such as 'A Beautiful Mind' and 'The Imitation Game' and not enough of the far more common and normal geniuses, exemplified by Einstein, whose humanity is expanded by their genius.

  • Thanks for the beautiful interview and article, I have just started my Ph.D, and your interview has motivated me a lot.

  • The question about gender diversity just makes me sigh. Do you really think men are keeping women out, when women are getting something like 60% of all college degrees these days, and men often lament what a "sausage fest" their field is? Isn't it possible, just possible, that most women make different choices not due to some sort of sexist gatekeeping, but because they want different things out of life?

    I'm not saying women are less intelligent or anything like that, but even if women are more *broadly* intelligent than men, wouldn't that tend to push them toward more interdisciplinary fields? There are so many possible explanations here, painting women as victims of sexism really shouldn't be your first instinct.

    And this idea that more gender equity would make mathematics better seems entirely unfounded to me. I certainly wouldn't *object* to seeing more female mathematicians, but do you really think your gender brings a unique perspective that improves your ability to solve mathematical problems?

  • @ Ver Greeneyes:

    Women do have it harder than men, still. Their work is less respected, and they are not encouraged to enter the field, if not actively discouraged. For a case with a nearly ideal control variable, read up on Ben Barres, a neurobiologist at Stanford University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barres). After transitioning to male in 1997, his work was immediately much better received and respected by other scientists, to the point where some said it was much better than his "sister's" (actually him before transitioning).

    As for women making different choices, what is the evidence of your assumption that women have different career priorities than men? There's not even consistency among STEM fields. Physics, my field, has less than 10% female representation. Meanwhile, biology has reached parity in male-female representation. Is there something inherent to women that makes them choose biology over physical sciences and math? I have my doubts.

    From a purely pragmatic perspective, keeping half of potential mathematicians out of the field for no good reason is damaging to mathematics. Fewer people means less work can be done.

  • "It’s good to have a diversity of frames of mind. Two different mathematicians think in two slightly different ways, and women do tend to think a little bit differently."

    Whatever the truth of the idea that women have different perspectives in general, I doubt it has much relevance to math or the mathematical sciences. Could one guess from a paper the gender of the author based on style, with even slightly better success than chance? I doubt it.

    If it were true that men and women have appreciably different mathematical ways of doing things I don't see why we would expect a 50-50 mix to be optimal.

    I do think that there are women who could make great contributions to science and be happy doing so but because of cultural gender roles pursue other careers. I hope positive examples like Professor Serfaty can change that.

  • What a beautiful article. Again, thank you for this Dr. Serfaty; the style of it very much conveyed your attitudes on truth an beauty. One of the things that continually draws me occasionally back to physics is the purity of the pursuit so needless to say I very much enjoyed the style of this. It reminded me much of the feeling I would have when reading about the Copenhagen Interpretation (the original…I jest).

    I think sometimes the politics, the money, even the fame and success sometimes interferes with treating this discipline (as with mathematics) with the proper respect and reverence that our modern atomism requires. It wasn't just nice of you to remind us of it but to propel us into the air with your thoughts and words. I have deep feelings about the purity of it that I don't know how I mediate the mundain with the things you have shared with us.

    Based on what I read, it seems that we have similar roots in computational physics, of slicing equations into bits that our machines can understand and process for us (truly remarkable that achievement of Turing's mind…the modern workstation).

    A question I have for you: these triangular matricies, are they real do you think or artifacts of the modelling involved (and I apologize if looking under a microscope if they actually are triangular). And what shape are they…and what have you understood about them how the electrons flow over and thru them (assuming they do this). I mean what can you tell us about superconductivity, really and literally?

    Do you think that aesthetics plays a part in this?

Comments are closed.