4 ms·

Wow, I swear I was just wondering last night if he was still alive or not, as I was reading about him in Serge Lang's Algebra. Personal coincidence for me. May

by jordigh 12y ago

Wow, I swear I was just wondering last night if he was still alive or not, as I was reading about him in Serge Lang's Algebra. Personal coincidence for me. May we never forget the Grothendieck prime, 57.

davmre 12y ago
For those unfamiliar with the reference (from http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf): 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." But Grothendieck must have known that 57 is not prime, right? Absolutely not, said David Mumford of Brown University. “He doesn’t think concretely.”
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what Mumford is alluding to, care to explain?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - billforsternz 12y ago
    You or I might try to understand some mathematics by mapping it onto some kind of real-world analog, for example a model or graph or specific example case. This guy was a genius who didn't need to do that.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    He was a very abstract mathematician, he built and worked with concepts and neither used nor needed numbers much.
  - wires 12y ago
    His style of thinking seems very categorical, where one does not focus on structure of the objects in question (say prime numbers), rather on the mappings between/from/to them. In fact, from the cat. perspective you need to put extra effort to point out particular objects in your collection (http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generalized+element http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generalized+element). Grothendieck certainly knew what it means for p to be prime. I don't know, but maybe his thoughts went along the line of "primes are some substructure of the natural numbers and such and such changes happen in the functions that we can build on them". So he was obviously able to speak about some collection of primes, yet whether an actual number is prime he probably doesn't think much about.
jacquesm 12y ago
3*19=?
- StandardFuture 12y ago
  56.999~
ernogoldfinger 12y ago
I was just thinking about him last night as well, but I was thinking about how cool he looks bald. Some people have a good looking skull.

by jordigh 12y ago

davmre 12y ago

For those unfamiliar with the reference (from http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf): 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." But Grothendieck must have known that 57 is not prime, right? Absolutely not, said David Mumford of Brown University. “He doesn’t think concretely.”

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Igglyboo 12y ago
I'm not sure I understand what Mumford is alluding to, care to explain?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- billforsternz 12y ago
  You or I might try to understand some mathematics by mapping it onto some kind of real-world analog, for example a model or graph or specific example case. This guy was a genius who didn't need to do that.
- masklinn 12y ago
  He was a very abstract mathematician, he built and worked with concepts and neither used nor needed numbers much.
- wires 12y ago
  His style of thinking seems very categorical, where one does not focus on structure of the objects in question (say prime numbers), rather on the mappings between/from/to them. In fact, from the cat. perspective you need to put extra effort to point out particular objects in your collection (http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generalized+element http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generalized+element). Grothendieck certainly knew what it means for p to be prime. I don't know, but maybe his thoughts went along the line of "primes are some substructure of the natural numbers and such and such changes happen in the functions that we can build on them". So he was obviously able to speak about some collection of primes, yet whether an actual number is prime he probably doesn't think much about.

jacquesm 12y ago

3*19=?

StandardFuture 12y ago
56.999~

ernogoldfinger 12y ago

I was just thinking about him last night as well, but I was thinking about how cool he looks bald. Some people have a good looking skull.