4 ms·
I kinda agree with you, but there are counter-examples. For eg: Grothendieck. > One striking characteristic of Grothendieck’s mode of thinking is that it seeme
by ssivark 12y ago
I kinda agree with you, but there are counter-examples. For eg: Grothendieck.
> One striking characteristic of Grothendieck’s mode of thinking is that it seemed to rely so little on examples. This can be seen in the legend of the so-called “Grothendieck prime”. In a mathematical conversation, someone suggested to Grothendieck that they should consider a particular prime number. “You mean an actual number?” Grothendieck asked. The other person replied, yes, an actual prime number. Grothendieck suggested, “All right, take 57.”
( taken form http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf )
Btw, 57 is now jocularly referred to as the "Grothendieck prime".
- cscurmudgeon 12y agoI think people are taking this point too literally. One could still do math exercises at the abstract level which don't involve any arithmetic.
- jordigh 12y agoHeh, I knew someone would come up with the Grothendieck prime example. That's why I said, "the computations don't have to be purely numerical: even a diagram chase in abstract nonsense is a valuable exercise." I think Grothendieck certainly was a master of these and performed them regularly.
- Grue3 12y agoThe best part, 57 is trivially divisible by 3 (5+7=12)