From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6103 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vaughan Pratt Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Another question on Grothendieck Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:04:54 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Message-ID: References: <4C819AD7.8090403@dm.uba.ar> Reply-To: Vaughan Pratt NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283610239 23408 80.91.229.12 (4 Sep 2010 14:23:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:23:59 +0000 (UTC) To: categories list Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Sat Sep 04 16:23:58 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtpy.mta.ca ([138.73.1.139]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Orter-0008Kq-0n for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:23:53 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:57548) by smtpy.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ortdd-0005Hq-TB; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:22:38 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OrtdY-00007m-8d for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:22:32 -0300 In-Reply-To: <4C819AD7.8090403@dm.uba.ar> Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6103 Archived-At: All I am saying is that one need not read Galois in order to learn Galois theory. When a new idea is introduced, even if it is not explained so clearly that everyone understands it right away, as long as someone understands it and can rephrase it in a helpful way, the impact of the idea has been not only felt but disseminated. Dissemination is not always a single step. Vaughan On 9/3/2010 6:03 PM, Eduardo J. Dubuc wrote: > I confess that I am a little bit confused about what Vaughan is saying. > > This promps me to repeat my posting in other words: > > If a mathematical statement is understood by a reader (the hypotesis, > the conclusion and the proof) > > then the mathematical meaning of any particular notation used should > come up by itself to this reader (that is, it should be clear for him > that only one possible meaning for this particular notation would make > the things work). > > Eduardo > > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]