Alexander Grothendieck, the secret genius of mathematics(al3x.svbtle.com)
al3x.svbtle.com
Alexander Grothendieck, the secret genius of mathematics
http://al3x.svbtle.com/alexander-grothendieck
7 comments
I don't yet know how to say it, but I quit my PhD for the same reasons expressed by Grothendieck here. I'm not yet interested in talking about it; I feel confident and confused about it. Instead, more, I just felt the need to confess some small sympathy with the ideas expressed in these quotes.
I am one-quarter into "Disciplined Minds", a book by John Pilger. It looks like the author may be addressing similar issues. Have you perhaps read this book?
Minor correction: Jeff Schmidt was the author. (http://disciplined-minds.com/)
(Just in case someone loses a couple minutes searching. :)
(Just in case someone loses a couple minutes searching. :)
Oops. My bad for posting while sleep-deprived. Thanks.
I haven't. I will take a look.
David Mumford did a great job summarizing his contributions:
http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/mumford/blog/2014/Grothendie...
On a side note, this was an obituary invited by Nature that was surprisingly rejected for being too technical!
http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/mumford/blog/2014/Grothendie...
On a side note, this was an obituary invited by Nature that was surprisingly rejected for being too technical!
The obituary was too technical for Nature.
Thanks for that link. The discussion and comments at the end are fascinating. Sad that STEM is getting dumbed down along with general education.
I've been self-learning analysis and differential geometry for a while now, and feel that the way math is taught at the secondary and post-seconardy level -- and just the way the framing of the subject -- does actual damage to our chances of learning it. What I mean is, a lot of so-called higher-level or advanced math is concerned with unifying generalities. Starting with the most limited, simplest instance of sets -- integers -- makes each iteration into more general terrain seem 'difficult'. Whereas, if math education started with the abstract generality (topologies and abstract algebra), any particular constriction to a domain (complex, reals, functions, etc.) wouldn't seem isolated or unique.
Anyway, thanks for the reference!
I've been self-learning analysis and differential geometry for a while now, and feel that the way math is taught at the secondary and post-seconardy level -- and just the way the framing of the subject -- does actual damage to our chances of learning it. What I mean is, a lot of so-called higher-level or advanced math is concerned with unifying generalities. Starting with the most limited, simplest instance of sets -- integers -- makes each iteration into more general terrain seem 'difficult'. Whereas, if math education started with the abstract generality (topologies and abstract algebra), any particular constriction to a domain (complex, reals, functions, etc.) wouldn't seem isolated or unique.
Anyway, thanks for the reference!
Here is the original work "Récoltes et Semailles" from Grothendieck (PDF, French): http://lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~duchamp/Books&more/Grothendieck...
Brace yourself, it's about 1000 thousand pages, sometimes very technical. The post I translated is a very short summary.
Brace yourself, it's about 1000 thousand pages, sometimes very technical. The post I translated is a very short summary.
1000 thousand pages
The CERN talk referred to in the article is also available as an mp3 audio here: https://archive.org/details/AlexandreGrothendieck-UneVieDign...
It's in French, but very touching to hear A. Grothendieck's voice.
It's in French, but very touching to hear A. Grothendieck's voice.
Sounds like quite an amazing and brave individual. We need more of his caliber. Is there a translation of his writing available in English? I would be very interested in reading more of his "Crops and Seeds"
How can someone be a "secret" genius if they are one of the most famous mathematicians of the 20th century and received the field's highest honor?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I guess it's because he isn't as widely known to the public as other 'geniuses'. Or at least the people that label him as such feel that he isn't.
Grothendieck's writing is beautifully translated and is a beacon of moral courage.