Deligne on Grothendieck

Deligne on Grothendieck

[Joyal, André]

An interview of Deligne by MacPherson:


https://simonsfoundation.org/category/features/science-lives/


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

Re: Deligne on Grothendieck

[Eduardo J. Dubuc]

On 29/01/13 09:08, Joyal, Andr? wrote:
> An interview of Deligne by MacPherson:
>
>
> https://simonsfoundation.org/category/features/science-lives/
>

I have not see the interview of Deligne by MacPherson in the link above,
but I read in that link the comments of Serre on the mathematics of
Deligne as opposed to the mathematics of Grothendieck, and his
conclusion that Deligne is best. It is interesting to notice that when
describing the characteristics and virtues of Deligne's mathematics he
is just describing  the characteristics and virtues of his own
mathematics. Clearly Deligne's and Serre's mathematics are similar and
different to Grothendieck's. In putting Deligne's mathematics at the
top, Serre is just putting his own mathematics at the top.


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

Re: Deligne on Grothendieck

[David Espinosa]

(1) Please re-read.  I think the comments you're referring to are from 
Mumford, not Serre.

(2) It's only natural that each mathematician prefers his/her own style -- 
I do mathematics the way I like it to be done.  The same brain is both 
generator and recognizer.  I find my own jokes funny for exactly the same 
reason!


On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:00 PM, "Eduardo J. Dubuc" <edubuc@dm.uba.ar> wrote:

> I have not see the interview of Deligne by MacPherson in the link above,
> but I read in that link the comments of Serre on the mathematics of
> Deligne as opposed to the mathematics of Grothendieck, and his
> conclusion that Deligne is best. It is interesting to notice that when
> describing the characteristics and virtues of Deligne's mathematics he
> is just describing  the characteristics and virtues of his own
> mathematics. Clearly Deligne's and Serre's mathematics are similar and
> different to Grothendieck's. In putting Deligne's mathematics at the
> top, Serre is just putting his own mathematics at the top.




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

Re: Deligne on Grothendieck

[Colin McLarty]

Eduardo,

I guess you meant the comments of Serre quoted along with Mumford,
Tate, and Arkani-Hamed in the note by Siobhan Roberts.  (The note is
at simonsfoundation.org/science_lives_bio/pierre-deligne/)

Colin



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Colin McLarty <colin.mclarty@case.edu> wrote:
> Where is the link to Serre's comments?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Eduardo J. Dubuc <edubuc@dm.uba.ar> wrote:
>> On 29/01/13 09:08, Joyal, Andr? wrote:
>>>
>>> An interview of Deligne by MacPherson:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://simonsfoundation.org/category/features/science-lives/
>>>
>>
>> I have not see the interview of Deligne by MacPherson in the link above,
>> but I read in that link the comments of Serre on the mathematics of
>> Deligne as opposed to the mathematics of Grothendieck, and his
>> conclusion that Deligne is best. It is interesting to notice that when
>> describing the characteristics and virtues of Deligne's mathematics he
>> is just describing  the characteristics and virtues of his own
>> mathematics. Clearly Deligne's and Serre's mathematics are similar and
>> different to Grothendieck's. In putting Deligne's mathematics at the
>> top, Serre is just putting his own mathematics at the top.
>>

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

Re: Deligne on Grothendieck

[Eduardo J. Dubuc]

I make some presicions on my previous posting:

go to the link,

https://simonsfoundation.org/category/features/science-lives/

click on deligne photo, then click BIO AND PHOTOS, then read there.

My posting should be read more accurately as follows:

I have not see the interview of Deligne by MacPherson in the link above,
but I read in that link the comments of Munford and Tate on the
mathematics of Deligne as opposed to the mathematics of Grothendieck,
comments that also apply (if you want) to the mathematics of Serre as
opposed to the mathematics of Grothendieck.

Then Serre says that Deligne is best.

It is interesting to notice that when  describing the characteristics
and virtues of Deligne's mathematics Munford and Tate could be
just describing  the characteristics and virtues of Serre's mathematics.
Clearly Deligne's and Serre's mathematics are similar in those aspects
and different to Grothendieck's. In putting Deligne's mathematics at the
top, Serre is just putting his own mathematics at the top.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: categories: Deligne on Grothendieck
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:00:24 -0300
From: Eduardo J. Dubuc <edubuc@dm.uba.ar>
To: "Joyal, Andr?" <joyal.andre@uqam.ca>
CC: categories@mta.ca

On 29/01/13 09:08, Joyal, Andr? wrote:
> An interview of Deligne by MacPherson:
>
>
> https://simonsfoundation.org/category/features/science-lives/
>
>
> [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

I have not see the interview of Deligne by MacPherson in the link above,
but I read in that link the comments of Serre on the mathematics of
Deligne as opposed to the mathematics of Grothendieck, and his
conclusion that Deligne is best. It is interesting to notice that when
describing the characteristics and virtues of Deligne's mathematics he
is just describing  the characteristics and virtues of his own
mathematics. Clearly Deligne's and Serre's mathematics are similar and
different to Grothendieck's. In putting Deligne's mathematics at the
top, Serre is just putting his own mathematics at the top.


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