From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4609 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "R Brown" Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: bourbaki_and_disdain Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:22:08 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020055 14032 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:47:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:47:35 +0000 (UTC) To: "edubuc" , "Categories list" Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Sat Sep 20 10:13:13 2008 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:13:13 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Kh2Bc-0006No-9C for categories-list@mta.ca; Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:07:44 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 79 Original-Lines: 68 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4609 Archived-At: In this discussion I would like to mention some things about Alexander = Grothendieck: In 1958 at Edinburgh ICM (me very callow!) I happened to hear Raoul Bott = say 2 things which expressed his own amazement about AG: One was that AG could play with concepts and make something real of it. = (Compare AG's comment to me much later: `The introduction of the cipher = 0 or the group concept was general nonsense too, and mathematics was = more or less stagnating for thousands of years because nobody was around = to take such childish steps ...',) I like the idea that `childish steps' = should still be possible in mathematics, and may be more fun than trying = the famous problem line. In fact Saul Ulam told me at a conference in = Sicily in 1964 that a young person may think that the most ambitious = thing to do is to try for solving a famous problem; but this might = distract them from developing the mathematics most appropriate to them. = I was not in danger of the former, but I thought it interesting that = someone so good as Ulam should make this comment, and think it worth = publicising, since it is relevant to aims. =20 The other comment of Bott was that AG was prepared to work very hard to = make things become tautologous. Should one say this is also (except in = the exercises!) the intention of Bourbaki ?=20 AG also mentioned to me that his initial direction at Paris was not = viewed favourably until it proved the generalisation of the Riemann-Roch = theorem!=20 Ronnie ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "edubuc" To: "Categories list" Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:42 PM Subject: categories: bourbaki_and_disdain > Hello >=20 > 1) I agree completely with Andre, or, more properly, with Samuel > Eilemberg and Pierre Cartier (Andre just tel us what they said to him > when he ask them the question) >=20 > So the problem is not wether to agree with Andre or not, but wether to > agree with Eilemberg-Cartier or not. They said to Andre: >=20 > "Bourbaki had essentially two options: rewrite the whole treaty using > categories, > or just introduce them in the book on homological algebra, > The second option won, essentially because of the enormity of the task > of rewriting everything." >=20 > 2) We can see that this makes sense too, the Bourbaki Tractate was > already written, and Grothendieck's proposal was to entirely rewrite = the > thing !! >=20 ...