From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/7590 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eduardo J. Dubuc" Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Deligne on Grothendieck Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:53:48 -0300 Message-ID: References: <510989E8.9070307@dm.uba.ar> Reply-To: "Eduardo J. Dubuc" NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1359724146 29365 80.91.229.3 (1 Feb 2013 13:09:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:09:06 +0000 (UTC) To: Categories Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Fri Feb 01 14:09:25 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtp3.mta.ca ([138.73.1.32]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U1GMl-0002xH-KG for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:09:15 +0100 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:39837) by smtp3.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1U1GKx-0001N3-U4; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:07:23 -0400 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U1GKw-000824-QY for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:07:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <510989E8.9070307@dm.uba.ar> Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:7590 Archived-At: 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 To: "Joyal, Andr?" 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/ ]