Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    Abiola_Lapite's photos More of Abiola_Lapite's photos

« What is the Significance of This? | Main | Let Us Do Evil, That Good May Result »

December 29, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451afe869e200d8346a074069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Grothendieck Primes:

Comments

Don Lloyd

Abiola,

---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.”---

I'm confused as to what the point of the story is. It was clear until I realized that 57 is NOT a prime number.

Regards, Don

Delmore Macnamara

Don (assuming you are not being ultraironic), that 57 is *not* a prime is precisely the point - partisans of "abstract nonsense" (I use the phrase affectionately) are often surpisingly unfamiliar with the actual facts of arithmetic.

At Edinburgh there is an algebraic topologist, Dr Andrew Ranicki. He used to cover many blackboards with (to me) unfathomable proofs in his lectures, but never in the obvious sequence i.e. higher boards before lower ones, left before right. He was prevailed upon by the student representative to number his boards so that the slower students could follow the correct sequence. He agreed, but it is debatable whether his efforts helped much; a typical numbering would be 1,1,3,4,6,5,...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Notes for Readers