re: A well kept secret

[Robert Seely <rags@math.mcgill.ca>]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh wrote:

> I have read that  Dirac had no empathy, not even for his family. I think the
> story goes the same  for many other famous mathematicians/scientists. Why is
> it being so promoted that being a good mathematician and a good human being
> is impossible? Is it really true?

Certainly Farmelo's book gives that impression - Dirac wasn't exactly
warm and cuddly.  But I'd say that from my experience with
mathematicians, there's no reason to assert that one cannot be both a
good mathematician and a good human being - but maybe that's just
because most mathematicians I know are category theorists ...

... (there are exceptions, of course) ...

-= rags =-


> -Mehrnoosh
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Robert Seely <rags@math.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>> Well, we might not say that, but Voevodsky did.  Link on the triples
>> page: http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/  (or directly
>> http://claymath.msri.org/voevodsky2002.mov) where he says "Categories:
>> one of the most important ideas of 20th century mathematics".
>>
>> BTW - the Farmelo book, The Strangest Man, is one I recommend to my
>> students - it's well worth looking at.  But one thing that struck me
>> was how *little* Farmelo plays the "strange man" theme - Dirac was
>> indeed strange, but that's not what makes him worth reading about, nor
>> was it what made him a great theoretician.  Farmelo doesn't (IMO) make
>> the same mistake so many documentary producers do ...
>>
>> -= rags =-
>>

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]