Live data from Hacker News

Alexander Grothendieck Revolutionized 20th-Century Mathematics

quantamagazine.org

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Alexander Grothendieck Revolutionized 20th-Century Mathematics

#31
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just noticed that it's 60-3 without any divisibility tests. Tao's 27 prime was much more embarassing but understandable as he's no a calculator. Savants are for things like remembering the first million primes. Someone like Tao or Grothendieck can't remeber them beyond 20, but it doesn't mean they can't actuly reason about them.

What's Tao's 27 prime again?

there was some interview where he illustrated the idea of a twin prime pair using 27 and 29

Re: Alexander Grothendieck Revolutionized 20th-Century Mathematics

#32
Interestingly, the way in which Grothendieck conceived of equality is nowadays being questioned, especially due to the rise of formalized mathematics and Lean. More concretely, there is this fun paper by Kevin Buzzard which deconstructs it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10387

Money quote:

> In this paper I argue that the first assertion above is false, the second is dan- gerous, and the third is meaningless.

Re: Alexander Grothendieck Revolutionized 20th-Century Mathematics

#33
Peter Woit (https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/) has occasionally posted about Grothendieck's life and work. E.g.

Articles on his life: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7335

Two Titans (Grothendieck and Witten) - https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12868

AMS Math articles on Grothendieck - https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=78

Re: Alexander Grothendieck Revolutionized 20th-Century Mathematics

#34
post #5

One of my favourite Grothendieck stories from https://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pd... >: > One striking characteristic of Grothendieck's mode of thinking is that it seemed to rely so little on examples. This can be seen in the legend of the so-called "Grothendieck prime". In a mathematical conversation, someone suggested to Grothendieck that they should consider a particular prime number. "You…

As a curiosity, the contrast between Grothendieck and Ramanujan is very striking. One famous story about Ramanujan from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1729_(number)):

"Hardy stated that the number 1729 from a taxicab he rode was a "dull" number and "hopefully it is not unfavourable omen", but Ramanujan remarked that "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways"."

They, of course, were very different personalities, doing very different mathematics with very different impacts on the field. I always found it interesting that Ramanujan seemed to be very comfortable with numbers, their properties, patterns (continued fractions) and Grothendieck was very comfortable with structures and their rhythms without paying attention to concrete examples.

Re: Alexander Grothendieck Revolutionized 20th-Century Mathematics

#35
post #18

For anyone interested in Grothendieck's opinions on kimchi … https://mikepierce.github.io/grothendieck-kimchi/translation...

all mention of aekjeot (fish sauce) and saeujeot (tiny shrimp) seems to be elided here. kimchi in coastal regions (and most commercialized korean kimchi) has a strong tendency to have that in, so if you take grothendieck's recipe as is, you won't have the exported korean taste. northern kimchis have diverged materially in addition, due to north korea being fucked up. aekjeot you can just add but the procedure to add…

Likely because Grothendieck was a vegetarian, at least later in his life.

Re: Alexander Grothendieck Revolutionized 20th-Century Mathematics

#36
Super. I always wanted to learn about sheaves and schemes and the like, and this gives a simple introduction that really motivates digging deeper into the details.

It is also immediately clear why this plays a role in semantics for logics: although a ring is not that important in logic (I would think), the idea to study a theory through its syntactical consequences turned into semantics is very natural, and exactly what I do for abstraction logic as well, in particular via "valuation spaces". And it has the same property, once you set up everything the right way, things like completeness just automatically flow out of it.

Post reply on HN