"Credit is not a zero-sum game."
History sadly says differently. It seems many discoveries are made concurrently, yet only one becomes synonymous with the discovery. And wouldn't you know it, as I went to Google a few examples (evolution and DNA were on my mind), I found Stigler's Law of Eponymy[0]. The derivation makes sense for our context here:
"Historical acclaim for discoveries is often assigned to persons of note who bring attention to an idea that is not yet widely known, whether or not that person was its original inventor."
Prestige and credit matters quite a bit in academia, for example, when seeking tenure or getting appointed to a endowed chair.
Based on your recommendation I did. Lubos is being Lubos again I see.
Not a reliable source of judgement by any stretch of the imagination.
Edit: If you start reading the comments make sure you read to the end, where actual mathematicians are commenting.
What seems to have happened there is this: A genius used his intuition to solve a foundational issue, but did not produce an adequate proof that he actually did. 16 years later others come in and make sure that he does. Now there is some controversial about who gets credit for the proof and for the solution of the foundational issue.
There shouldn't be such a controversial. Credit is not a zero-sum game. If somebody now goes ahead and produces a formal machine-checked framework for symplectic geometry, that should deserve credit as well: Obviously not for solving the original problem, but for checking beyond any doubt that the produced mathematics is solid.
Of course ideas are the life-blood of mathematics, but then again ideas are the life-blood of any creative human endeavour. What is special about mathematics are the proofs. So I don't see any problem in giving substantial credit to people who try to make proofs most rigorous.