

Reminiscences of Grothendieck and His School (2010) [pdf] - valera_rozuvan
http://www.ams.org/notices/201009/rtx100901106p.pdf

======
myg204
Thanks for posting this. The mathematics involved is way above my head, but
it's very pleasant to read about this group of mathematicians and particular
time.

This sentence from Illusie says a lot: _" The person who at the time could
repair anything that went wrong was Deligne. "_.

Also, this nod to Knuth is worth mentioning:

 _" Nowadays you have such efficient TEX systems, manuscripts look very nice.
In Grothendieck’s time the presentation was not so beautiful, maybe, but
Dieudonné-Grothendieck’s manuscripts were still fantastic."_

The amount of time spent formatting papers at the time should have been better
spent.

Also, Serre placing Weil higher than Grothendieck is interesting to read. I
wonder if they all place Serre higher than anyone...

~~~
effie
It is a weird mode of thought we have, comparing humans on a one-dimensional
scale and thus effectively devaluing them into numbers. What does that say
about us? It may be useful to see such an expedient in articles on businessmen
and their money, I suppose. But when one encounters it in publications on
someone's contributions to knowledge and culture, it is out of place.

------
EdwardCoffin
I've been interested in Grothendieck's thought process in general since I read
that thing about opening a nut by submersing it in water for a long time [1].
I'm talking about his general thought process, since I have nowhere near the
mathematical maturity to understand any of what he actually did.

I read the linked article and found a few nuggets that I think are of general
interest, which I am quoting below:

"To him no statement was ever the best one. He could always find something
better, more general or more flexible. Working on a problem, he said he had to
sleep with it for some time. He liked mechanisms that had oil in them. For
this you had to do scales, exercises (like a pianist), consider special cases,
functoriality. At the end you obtained a formalism amenable to dévissage." (p
1113)

“That was one principle of Grothendieck: every assertion should be justified,
either by a reference or by a proof. Even a “trivial” one. He hated such
phrases as “It’s easy to see,” “It’s easily checked.” When he was writing EGA,
you see, he was in unknown territory. Though he had a clear general picture,
it was easy to go astray. That’s partly why he wanted a justification for
everything. He also wanted Dieudonné to be able to understand!” (p 1115)

“Grothendieck was not thrifty. He thought that some complements, even if they
were not immediately useful, could prove important later and therefore should
not be removed. He wanted to see all the facets of a theory.” (p. 1115)

Edit: I just found another quotation about him, not from this article, but too
good not to mention here:

"What interested him were problems that seemed to point to larger, hidden
structures. “He would aim at finding and creating the home which was the
problem’s natural habitat,” Deligne noted. “That was the part that interested
him, more than solving the problem.”" [2]

[1] The Rising Sea: Grothendieck on simplicity and generality
[http://www.landsburg.com/grothendieck/mclarty1.pdf](http://www.landsburg.com/grothendieck/mclarty1.pdf)

[2] [http://www.ams.org/notices/200409/fea-grothendieck-
part1.pdf](http://www.ams.org/notices/200409/fea-grothendieck-part1.pdf) by
way of [http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Alexander-Grothendieck-
revered-b...](http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Alexander-Grothendieck-revered-by-
mathematicians)

