
Alexander Grothendieck has died - hokkos
http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/2014/11/13/alexandre-grothendieck-ou-la-mort-d-un-genie-qui-voulait-se-faire-oublier_1142614
======
michael_nielsen
Grothendieck's comments on creativity have been very important in my life,
especially the following quote (in translation from the French):

"To state it in slightly different terms: in those critical years [roughly
from age 17 to 20] I learned how to be alone."

"This formulation doesn't really capture my meaning. I didn't, in any literal
sense learn to be alone, for the simple reason that this knowledge had never
been unlearned during my childhood. It is a basic capacity in all of us from
the day of our birth. However these 3 years of work in isolation, when I was
thrown onto my own resources, following guidelines which I myself had
spontaneously invented, instilled in me a strong degree of confidence,
unassuming yet enduring, in my ability to do mathematics, which owes nothing
to any consensus or to the fashions which pass as law...."

"By this I mean to say: to reach out in my own way to the things I wished to
learn, rather than relying on the notions of the consensus, overt or tacit,
coming from a more or less extended clan of which I found myself a member, or
which for any other reason laid claim to be taken as an authority. This silent
consensus had informed me, both at the lyé and at the university, that one
shouldn't bother worrying about what was really meant when using a term like
"volume", which was "obviously self-evident", "generally known",
"unproblematic", etc. I'd gone over their heads, almost as a matter of course,
even as Lesbesgue himself had, several decades before, gone over their heads.
It is in this gesture of "going beyond", to be something in oneself rather
than the pawn of a consensus, the refusal to stay within a rigid circle that
others have drawn around one - it is in this solitary act that one finds true
creativity. All others things follow as a matter of course."

Very late in his life, Grothendieck asked for people to cease re-publishing
his work, even brief excerpts. (See:
[http://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/grothendiecks-
lett...](http://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/grothendiecks-letter/) ) So
I have mixed feelings about quoting the above. But I do so in the hope that it
can help others as it has helped me.

~~~
_almosnow
I actually became aware of Grothendieck's existence because of his isolation
and will to be forgotten from this world (including his plead to have his work
removed). I will never know the true reason behind his behavior but I'm a
scientist myself (life sciences) and at some point of my life I started to
hate the field and actually wanting to become isolated and not sharing the
tiniest bit of my work with my peers.

People will quickly judge you as a bad person if you don't want to give your
work for the greater good of humanity and science, however, for a person
that's outside the field it's easy to overlook the many things (not
neccesarily related to science itself) that a scientist has to deal with.

Science, like all profession, has its own demons and bad times, and how do you
cope with those is a fundamental skill that you have to develop in order to be
able to, well, do science.

Anyway, a little off-topic but I wanted to say that I sympathize with the guy
and I think that he has all the right to ask the community to stop sharing
their ideas, just as anyone has all the right to come up with their own ideas
and decide to share them or not.

~~~
PavlovsCat
I was just reminded of something I read in the exchange between Einstein and
Born; I tried to figure out how to quote it all without loosing context or
making a mess, but failed. It's at
[http://archive.org/stream/TheBornEinsteinLetters/Born-
TheBor...](http://archive.org/stream/TheBornEinsteinLetters/Born-
TheBornEinsteinLetters_djvu.txt) , search for "I enclose the text of my letter
to the Reporter". Which in turn, now reminds me of Bob Dylan's "Masters of
War":

    
    
        You’ve thrown the worst fear
        That can ever be hurled
        Fear to bring children
        Into the world
    

Which maybe isn't even that much of a stretch. It stinks that things that
should be purely a celebration, namely to bring new life or new knowledge into
the world, are not as clear cut, but I'd never blame the people who are having
such second thoughts. If we can't create and sustain an environment where
thought can flow and grow freely, then we shouldn't be surprised when we reap
mostly commercial mediocrity.

------
fermigier
Some of the best papers about his life and his work:

From the notices of the AMS: [http://www.ams.org/notices/200409/fea-
grothendieck-part1.pdf](http://www.ams.org/notices/200409/fea-grothendieck-
part1.pdf) [http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-
part2.pdf](http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf)

By Pierre Cartier:
[http://xahlee.info/math/i/Alexander_Grothendieck_cartier.pdf](http://xahlee.info/math/i/Alexander_Grothendieck_cartier.pdf)

By Pierre Deligne (in French):
[http://www.emis.de/journals/SC/1998/3/pdf/smf_sem-
cong_3_11-...](http://www.emis.de/journals/SC/1998/3/pdf/smf_sem-
cong_3_11-19.pdf)

------
j2kun
For those who don't know, Alexander[1] Grothendieck revolutionized algebraic
geometry, which is (in a very rough sense) the study of solutions of systems
of polynomial equations as both algebraic and geometric objects. Grothendieck
gave a totally new foundation for the subject via category theory, and one
could argue that he is a primary reason why categories are so central in
modern mathematics.

[1]: He spelled his own name different from the French spelling, apparently.

------
205guy
I am both surprised as how successful he was at remaining obscure, and yet how
many on HN were familiar with his work and writings.

I was briefly a math major at the university, I studied at a technical school
in France, I read a lot on technical forums such as HN where some people seem
to know his work, like many I am fascinated by geniuses and their
eccentricities, I browse Wikipedia for fun, and yet I was totally unaware of
his life and work. Maybe I'd heard his name in passing, but no mention of his
talent or writings, or his eccentric life because then I would've remembered
his name.

I find it sad that he is so obscure, though I see that it was his wish. On the
one hand, you want to respect someone who obviously had his own reasons for
withdrawal, on the other it seems like a madman's wish to be erased from the
history books and even from the annals of science. That's not how science
works, and that he thought he could be the exception shows a disjunction. I
don't want to imply it was a mental illness, but I'd like to read more to try
to understand his state of mind. Now that he lived and died in (relative)
obscurity, it won't hurt to learn about him and learn from him.

~~~
Bahamut
In mathematics, he is far from obscure though. His name is all over algebraic
geometry. Any graduate student who has taken an algebraic geometry class would
absolutely know of him, and most should have heard of his name from various
algebra or topology courses.

------
auntienomen
It's difficult to understate Grothendieck's impact on modern mathematics. His
work touches everything from stochastic PDE to number theory. In algebraic
geometry, where he had the most impact, it is difficult to so much as think
about the subject without using his ideas.

His personal story is also interesting and unique.

Pierre Cartier recently published an appreciation of his life and work --
Alexander Grothendieck: A Country Known Only By Name -- which is well worth
the read even if you aren't a mathematician. [http://inference-
review.com/article/a-country-known-only-by-...](http://inference-
review.com/article/a-country-known-only-by-name)

------
pfortuny
May he rest in peace. His honest fight against war (teaching in Hanoi while
bombings were going on, leaving the IHES after learning that NATO supported
it, etc.) are an example of honesty. One may disagree with his positions (as I
do) but we shall always be impressed by his acts.

I am obviously leaving the maths apart: we hope to stand on his shoulders, we
and many future generations.

------
thebear
I believe that Grothendieck always insisted on spelling his first name
"Alexander" rather than the French "Alexandre." If this is true, as I believe
it is, let's make an effort to respect his wish.

~~~
dang
Ok, we'll take your word for that and change the HN title.

~~~
thebear
Thanks, I checked the Wikipedia article at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck).
It says in the first paragraph: _' He consistently spelt his first name
"Alexander" rather than the French "Alexandre"'_, and they give a reference
for that.

~~~
hokkos
The french wikipedia says he cared a lot about the spelling "Alexander", but
signed his french work as "Alexadre".

------
neworder
There is a fundraising effort to fund the translation of Grothendieck's
biography, written by Winfried Scharlau:
[http://www.gofundme.com/7ldiwo](http://www.gofundme.com/7ldiwo)

I've read the 1st volume of the biography and fully recommend it, so if you
find AG's life interesting, you can consider donating a few bucks.

~~~
another_user
Are there any fundraising efforts on recoltes et semalles?

------
jordigh
Wow, I _swear_ I was just wondering last night if he was still alive or not,
as I was reading about him in Serge Lang's _Algebra_. Personal coincidence for
me.

May we never forget the Grothendieck prime, 57.

~~~
davmre
For those unfamiliar with the reference (from
[http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-
part2.pdf](http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf)):

    
    
      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 mean an actual number?” Grothendieck asked. 
      The other person replied, yes, an actual prime number. 
      Grothendieck suggested, “All right, take 57."
    
      But Grothendieck must have known that 57 is not
      prime, right? Absolutely not, said David Mumford
      of Brown University. “He doesn’t think concretely.”

~~~
Igglyboo
I'm not sure I understand what Mumford is alluding to, care to explain?

~~~
wires
His style of thinking seems very categorical, where one does not focus on
structure of the objects in question (say prime numbers), rather on the
mappings between/from/to them. In fact, from the cat. perspective you need to
put extra effort to point out particular objects in your collection
([http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generalized+element](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generalized+element)).

Grothendieck certainly knew what it means for p to be prime. I don't know, but
maybe his thoughts went along the line of "primes are some substructure of the
natural numbers and such and such changes happen in the functions that we can
build on them".

So he was obviously able to speak about some collection of primes, yet whether
an actual number is prime he probably doesn't think much about.

------
myg204
Sad news, such an original individual and truly a giant of Mathematics. To
imagine he invented Lebesgue measure theory on his own in his late teens. I
remember reading that when he was sent to study under Schwartz and Dieudonne
in Nancy (if i remember correctly), he solved the equivalent of seven phd
thesis problems in nine months. His work with radical ecology is also
highlighted in the article.

------
barbudorojo
I wonder if there is some hidden factor in the minds of those mathematicians
that allows them to think so easily in abstract terms. I have always needed to
begin with simple examples and from them to go to generalities. Perhaps they
learned all the easy stuff when they were children and all those years of
their adolescence were employed to enrich their minds with more and more
general and powerful concepts and frameworks. Then, when they mature they no
longer needs to think about the concrete, for then those abstracts ideas are
as concrete like a tree for a child.

That vision is only achievable for those able to live alone, to wander with
their thoughts, to lose themselves in the island of their inner world. Their
inner world and ideas are more real and concrete than what we see with our
eyes. They don't see a prime number, a prime ideal is only point in the
spectrum of a ring, their math ideas are so colorful that nobody can reach
that peak without forgetting where we come from and that the earth is our
planet. They live in a different math heaven always climbing to reach the book
(Erdos ideal).

------
lkesteloot
A good eulogy here from economist Steve Landsburg:
[http://www.thebigquestions.com/2014/11/13/the-rising-
sea/](http://www.thebigquestions.com/2014/11/13/the-rising-sea/)

"... the greatest of all modern mathematicians and arguably the greatest
mathematician of all time ..."

------
StandardFuture
The aspects that struck me the most about this article was how passionately
political his parents were. Moving around Europe in an effort to outright
escape/support various political factions. In fact, much of their apparent
political views and the people they were supporting seemed to be one vast pool
of contradictions (as most European politics were in those days -- thus World
War II). And it gave me a possible picture of why Alexandre may have used
mathematics as an escape from the ferocious world he grew up around until
maybe he became disenchanted with the idea of having any part of this same
world at all? I also remember reading about him partaking in anti-nuclear
rallies a while back. Idk, just my small take away. :)

------
joaorico
Here's one of his staggering quotes [1], worth reading through:

"In those critical years I learned how to be alone. [But even] this
formulation doesn't really capture my meaning. I didn't, in any literal sense
learn to be alone, for the simple reason that this knowledge had never been
unlearned during my childhood. It is a basic capacity in all of us from the
day of our birth. However these three years of work in isolation [1945–1948],
when I was thrown onto my own resources, following guidelines which I myself
had spontaneously invented, instilled in me a strong degree of confidence,
unassuming yet enduring, in my ability to do mathematics, which owes nothing
to any consensus or to the fashions which pass as law....By this I mean to
say: to reach out in my own way to the things I wished to learn, rather than
relying on the notions of the consensus, overt or tacit, coming from a more or
less extended clan of which I found myself a member, or which for any other
reason laid claim to be taken as an authority. This silent consensus had
informed me, both at the lycée and at the university, that one shouldn't
bother worrying about what was really meant when using a term like "volume,"
which was "obviously self-evident," "generally known," "unproblematic,"
etc....It is in this gesture of "going beyond," to be something in oneself
rather than the pawn of a consensus, the refusal to stay within a rigid circle
that others have drawn around one—it is in this solitary act that one finds
true creativity. All others things follow as a matter of course.

Since then I've had the chance, in the world of mathematics that bid me
welcome, to meet quite a number of people, both among my "elders" and among
young people in my general age group, who were much more brilliant, much more
"gifted" than I was. I admired the facility with which they picked up, as if
at play, new ideas, juggling them as if familiar with them from the
cradle—while for myself I felt clumsy, even oafish, wandering painfully up an
arduous track, like a dumb ox faced with an amorphous mountain of things that
I had to learn (so I was assured), things I felt incapable of understanding
the essentials or following through to the end. Indeed, there was little about
me that identified the kind of bright student who wins at prestigious
competitions or assimilates, almost by sleight of hand, the most forbidding
subjects.

In fact, most of these comrades who I gauged to be more brilliant than I have
gone on to become distinguished mathematicians. Still, from the perspective of
thirty or thirty-five years, I can state that their imprint upon the
mathematics of our time has not been very profound. They've all done things,
often beautiful things, in a context that was already set out before them,
which they had no inclination to disturb. Without being aware of it, they've
remained prisoners of those invisible and despotic circles which delimit the
universe of a certain milieu in a given era. To have broken these bounds they
would have had to rediscover in themselves that capability which was their
birthright, as it was mine: the capacity to be alone."

[1] Quote translation found in [2] from Alexander Grothendieck, Récoltes et
Semailles, 1986, English translation by Roy Lisker, www.grothendieck-
circle.org, chapter 2.

[2] Smolin, Lee - The Trouble with Physics

~~~
joaorico
If you know french this whole part of the Récoltes et Semailles is worth
reading:

"2.2. L’importance d’être seul

Quand j’ai finalement pris contact avec le monde mathématique à Paris, un ou
deux ans plus tard, j’ai fini par y apprendre, entre beaucoup d’autres choses,
que le travail que j’avais fait dans mon coin avec les moyens du bord, était
(à peu de choses près) ce qui était bien connu de "tout le monde", sous le
nom de théorie de la mesure et de l’intégrale de Lebesgue". Aux yeux des
deux ou trois aînés à qui j’ai parlé de ce travail (voire même, montré
un manuscrit), c’était un peu comme si j’avais simplement perdu mon temps, à
refaire du "déjà connu". Je ne me rappelle pas avoir été déçu,
d’ailleurs. A ce moment-là, l’idée de recueillir un "crédit", ou ne serait-
ce qu’une approbation ou simplement l’intérêt d’autrui, pour le travail que
je faisais, devait être encore étrangère à mon esprit. Sans compter que
mon énergie était bien assez accaparée à me familiariser avec un milieu
complètement différent, et surtout, à apprendre ce qui était considéré
à Paris comme le B.A.BA du mathématicien2.

Pourtant, en repensant maintenant à ces trois années, je me rends compte
qu’elles n’étaient nullement gas- pillées. Sans même le savoir, j’ai appris
alors dans la solitude ce qui fait l’essentiel du métier de mathématicien -
ce qu’aucun maître ne peut véritablement enseigner. Sans avoir eu jamais à
me le dire, sans avoir eu a ren- contrer quelqu’un avec qui partager ma soif
de comprendre, je savais pourtant, "par mes tripes" je dirais, que j’étais un
mathématicien : quelqu’un qui "fait" des maths, au plein sens du terme -
comme on "fait" l’amour. La mathématique était devenue pour moi une
maîtresse toujours accueillante à mon désir. Ces années de so- litude ont
posé le fondement d’une confiance qui n’a jamais été ébranlée - ni par la
découverte (débarquant à Paris à l’âge de vingt ans) de toute l’étendue
de mon ignorance et de l’immensité de ce qu’il me fallait apprendre : ni
(plus de vingt ans plus tard) par les épisodes mouvementés de mon départ
sans retour du monde mathématique ; ni, en ces dernières années, par les
épisodes souvent assez dingues d’un certain "Enterrement" (anticipé et sans
bavures) de ma personne et de mon oeuvre, orchestré par mes plus proches
compagnons d’antan. . .

Pour le dire autrement : j’ai appris, en ces années cruciales, à être
seul3. J’entends par là : aborder par mes propres lumières les choses que je
veux connaître, plutôt que de me fier aux idées et aux consensus, exprimés
ou tacites, qui me viendraient d’un groupe plus ou moins étendu dont je me
sentirais un membre, ou qui pour toute autre raison serait investi pour moi
d’autorité. Des consensus muets m’avaient dit, au lycée comme à
l’université, qu’il n’y avait pas lieu de se poser de question sur la notion
même de "volume", présentée comme "bien connue", "évidente", "sans
problème". J’avais passé outre, comme chose allant de soi - tout comme
Lebesgue, quelques décennies plus tôt, avait dû passer outre. C’est dans
cet acte de "passer outre", d’être soi-même en somme et non pas simplement
l’expression des consensus qui font loi, de ne pas rester enfermé à
l’intérieur du cercle impératif qu’ils nous fixent - c’est avant tout dans
cet acte solitaire que se trouve "la création". Tout le reste vient par
surcroît.

Par la suite, j’ai eu l’occasion, dans ce monde des mathématiciens qui
m’accueillait, de rencontrer bien des gens, aussi bien des aînés que des
jeunes gens plus ou moins de mon âge, qui visiblement étaient beaucoup plus
brillants, beaucoup plus "doués" que moi. Je les admirais pour la facilité
avec laquelle ils apprenaient, comme en se jouant, des notions nouvelles, et
jonglaient avec comme s’ils les connaissaient depuis leur berceau - alors que
je me sentais lourd et pataud, me frayant un chemin péniblement, comme une
taupe, à travers une montagne informe de choses qu’il était important
(m’assurait-on) que j’apprenne, et dont je me sentais incapable de saisir les
tenants et les aboutissants. En fait, je n’avais rien de l’étudiant brillant,
passant haut la main les concours prestigieux, assimilant en un tournemain des
programmes prohibitifs.

La plupart de mes camarades plus brillants sont d’ailleurs devenus des
mathématiciens compétents et ré- putés. Pourtant, avec le recul de trente
ou trente-cinq ans, je vois qu’ils n’ont pas laissé sur la mathématique ⋄ de
notre temps une empreinte vraiment profonde. Ils ont fait des choses, des
belles choses parfois, dans un contexte déjà tout fait, auquel ils
n’auraient pas songé à toucher. Ils sont restés prisonniers sans le savoir
de ces cercles invisibles et impérieux, qui délimitent un Univers dans un
milieu et à une époque donnée. Pour les franchir, il aurait fallu qu’ils
retrouvent en eux cette capacité qui était leur à leur naissance, tout
comme elle était mienne : la capacité d’être seul.

Le petit enfant, lui, n’a aucune difficulté à être seul. Il est solitaire
par nature, même si la compagnie occasionnelle ne lui déplaît pas et qu’il
sait réclamer la totosse de maman, quand c’est l’heure de boire. Et il sait
bien, sans avoir eu à se le dire, que la totosse est pour lui, et qu’il sait
boire. Mais souvent, nous avons perdu le contact avec cet enfant en nous. Et
constamment nous passons à côté du meilleur, sans daigner le voir. . .

Si dans Récoltes et Semailles je m’adresse à quelqu’un d’autre encore qu’à
moi-même, ce n’est pas à un "public". Je m’y adresse à toi qui me lis comme
à une personne, et à une personne seule. C’est à celui en toi qui sait
être seul, à l’enfant, que je voudrais parler, et à personne d’autre. Il
est loin souvent l’enfant, je le sais bien. Il en a vu de toutes les couleurs
et depuis belle lurette. Il s’est planqué Dieu sait où, et c’est pas facile,
souvent, d’arriver jusqu’à lui. On jurerait qu’il est mort depuis toujours,
qu’il n’a jamais existé plutôt - et pourtant, je suis sûr qu’il est là
quelque part, et bien en vie.

Et je sais aussi quel est le signe que je suis entendu. C’est quand, au delà
de toutes les différences de culture et de destin, ce que je dis de ma
personne et de ma vie trouve en toi écho et résonance ; quand tu y retrouves
aussi ta propre vie, ta propre expérience de toi-même, sous un jour
peut-être auquel tu n’avais pas accordé attention jusque là. Il ne s’agit
pas d’une "identification", à quelque chose ou à quelqu’un d’éloigné de
toi. Mais peut-être, un peu, que tu redécouvres ta propre vie, ce qui est le
plus proche de toi, a travers la redécouverte que je fais de la mienne, au
fil des pages dans Récoltes et Semailles et jusque dans ces pages que je suis
en train d’écrire aujourd’hui même."

~~~
mililani
Can someone translate this?

~~~
dwenzek
The first comment of joaorico quotes the translation of paragraphe 3rd,4th and
5th of the full quotation in french.

~~~
polybius
Yes. Here’s a slapdash translation of the other paragraphs, using a lot of
rusty French and a little Google Translate. Let me know if there's anything to
correct.

\- - -

When I finally made contact with the mathematical world at Paris, one or two
years later, I ended up learning, among a lot of other things, that the work
that I had done in my area with the means at hand, was (pretty much) something
well known to "everybody", under the names of measure theory and of Lebesgue
integrals. To the eyes of the two or three seniors to whom I had spoken of
this work (or even shown a manuscript), it was a little as if I had simply
wasted my time, by re-doing that which was "already known". I do not recall
having been disappointed, before. At that moment, the idea of collecting
"credit", be it the praise or let alone the interest of others, for the work
that I was doing, would have been foreign to my spirit, still. Besides, my
energy was well enough spent in familiarizing myself with a completely
different milieu, and, more, learning that which was considered at Paris the
equivalent of a B.A. in mathematics.

However, in thinking back now on those three years, I realize they were in no
way wasted. Without even knowing it, I had learned in solitude that which was
essential to the mathematician's work - that which no teacher, truly, could
teach. Without ever having it said to me, without having met anyone with whom
to share my thirst for _knowing_ things, I was, however, aware, "in my gut", I
would say, that I was a mathematician : someone who "did" math, in the full
sense of the term - like you "make" love. Mathematics was becoming for me a
mistress always welcoming of my desire. Those years of solitude had formed the
basis of a confidence which has never been shaken - neither by the discovery
(disembarking in Paris at the age of 20 years) of the whole extent of my
ignorance and of the immensity of that which it would be necessary to learn :
neither (more than 20 years later) by the uproar of my leaving for good the
mathematical world ; neither, in these last years, by the frequently pretty
crazy events of a certain kind of "burial" (anticipated and painless) of my
person and my work, orchestrated by my closest friends of old. . .

\- - -

[other paragraphs; see above]

\- - -

The infant, _he_ has no difficulty being alone. He is alone by nature, even if
occasional company doesn’t displease him and he knows to reach for his
mother’s breast, when it’s time to drink. He knows well, without having had it
said to him, that the breast is for him, and that he knows how to drink. But
often, we have lost contact with that infant in us. And constantly we pass
next to better things, without deigning to see. . .

If in these _Récoltes et Semailles_ I address myself to someone other than
myself, it’s not to the "public". I address myself to you, who reads me as one
person, and to one person alone. It’s to them, and you, who know how to be
alone, to the infant, that I would like to speak, and to other people. The
infant is often far away, I know it well. There, he’s seen all the colors, for
ages and ages. He’s hidden God knows where, and it is easy, often, to stumble
upon him. You would swear he’s been dead since forever, that he had never
existed at all - but I am sure that he’s there sometimes, and very much alive.

And I know also what the sign is, when I’ve been heard. It’s when, despite all
the differences of culture and destiny, that which I’ve said about my person
and life finds echo and resonance in you ; when you also find there your
proper life, your proper experience of yourself, on a day on which you were
not, perhaps, giving attention to it. It doesn’t mean anything along the lines
of "identification", to something or someone distant from you. But maybe, a
little, that you rediscover _your_ proper life, that which is closest to _you_
, in going over the rediscovery that I did of mine, through the pages in
_Récoltes et Semailles_ , and up to these pages that I am in the process of
writing even today.

~~~
fsiefken
translated also by Roy Lisker:
[http://www.fermentmagazine.org/rands/promenade2.html](http://www.fermentmagazine.org/rands/promenade2.html)

------
hokkos
Grothendieck has been a point of interest in me since I read many years ago
about his work about generalization of theories, his genius, his hermit life
and that he chose to be stateless. Just last Sunday I saw an issue of a
scientific magazine about him in a friend's house, and said I loved this guy,
it is so strange and sad to learn about his death a few days after.

------
dil8
Translation here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/2m82zw/reports_are_co...](https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/2m82zw/reports_are_coming_in_of_the_death_of_alexandre/cm1wt6u)

------
toreoft
Rest in peace. - A great matematician and even also a great philosopher.

------
conformal
while i am generally loathe to comment on HN, i consider it truly sad to see
the passing of grothendieck.

he was a truly revolutionary mathematician and his contribution to the (hard)
science of mathematics cannot be overstated. people who live on principle are
rare, and those willing to go without salary as part of that protest are even
rarer [1].

[1] -
[http://www.fermentmagazine.org/Quest88.html](http://www.fermentmagazine.org/Quest88.html)

------
malaporte
Wow. I've never heard about him, but reading the article I realized he used to
live not 500 meters away from my house (a long time ago).

------
toreoft
Rest in peace. A great matematician and even also a great philosopher.

------
kiba
Who is this guy? Why is he important?

~~~
defen
Arguably the most important mathematician of the second half of the 20th
century

