Letter from Grothendieck
Posted by John Baez
Alexander Grothendieck was the most visionary and radical mathematician in the second half of the 20th century - at least before he left his home and disappeared one fine day in 1991.
For a quick tale of his life, try clicking on his name above. For a longer version, try this:
-
Allyn Jackson, Comme apellé du néante - as if summoned from the void: the life of Alexandre Grothendieck. Part 1, Part 2.
This newly available document will be interesting to his fans, and also students of n-category theory:
Ronnie Brown was one of the first champions of higher-dimensional algebra, studying topology using first groupoids, and then n-groupoids and related structures. For more on his philosophy, try these:
Grothendieck became interested in n-groupoids and n-categories in the 1970s, so he began corresponding with Brown an others on these topics. In 1983 he sent a 593-page letter about these topics to Daniel Quillen - a letter which has now become extremely influential:
In fact, it was released in installments to a number of people including Larry Breen, Ronnie Brown, and Tim Porter. For more on this story, try:
In the newly released mail to Brown, Grothendieck wonders why Quillen didn’t reply to his letter! He also comments on how homotopy theorists seemed uninterested in higher-dimensional algebra:
It is all too evident that I am not an expert on homotopy theory, and the books I am writing now on foundational matters are very likely to be looked at as “rubbish” by most experts, unless I show up with π147(S123) as a byproduct (whereas it is for the least doubtful I will…).
His ideas were too far ahead of his time for easy acceptance. Only now are the times catching
up!
According to Ronnie Brown, Pursuing Stacks will be published in Documents Mathématiques, with various correspondence as an appendix, edited by Georges Maltsiniotis. Maltsiniotis and Brown are now editing 69 letters exchanged between Grothendieck and Brown; this one is number 17.
I also hear that Colin McLarty is working on a biography of Grothendieck.
I thank Ronnie Brown for making this letter from Grothendieck available, and also for converting his 1987 paper “From groups to groupoids: a brief survey” into LaTeX.
Posted at August 31, 2006 2:34 AM UTC
TrackBack URL for this Entry: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/912
Re: Letter from Grothendieck
Answers to Grothendieck´s meter question?
What is a meter?
What is a metre?
It’s 3.28 feet. And don’t tell me you don’t know what a foot is!
More seriously, I can imagine several perspectives from which this question is subtle and interesting. I am not sure which one of these subtleties we are supposed to be interested in.
For instance: are we allowed to assume that we know what a positron, and an electron are?
If so, there is a natural number - which I can tell you if desired - such that a meter is times the mean distance of the electron from the positron in the ground bound state of positronium.
(Actually, the official definition also involves a photon, and various quarks - namely the radiation emitted from caesium atoms. But that’s just a variation of the above theme.)
Of course, that explanation only works if we agree that we know what “distance” means in the first place.
So is the question maybe really: “What is distance?”
I must say I am slightly afraid that the real intention of the question is something like “What does it mean to observe something (like the ground state of positronium)?”
Hopefully David Corfield will be back from his vacation soon…
Re: Letter from Grothendieck
I can give some more clues about Grothendieck’s question if people want.
So can I.
Read the post
links for 2006-09-03
Weblog: leuschke.org
Excerpt: Letter from Grothendieck | The n-Category Café some recently uncovered correspondence between Grothendieck and Ronald Brown (tags: grothendieck toread) Cornell Library Historical Mathematics Monographs 200,000 pages on file. amazing. some great thing...
Tracked: September 3, 2006 6:17 AM
Re: Letter from Grothendieck
I understand that Grothendieck disliked physics (though many of his ideas have found application in physics today) for its military uses, much in the same way Lev Landau disliked topology although for other reasons.
Can anybody elaborate on that comment of his regarding to “share all his research in physics”?
Re: Letter from Grothendieck
Here a nice new article from W. Scharlau on Grothendieck.
Re: Letter from Grothendieck
Answers to Grothendieck´s meter question?