Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have downloaded from this link a quite poor quality scan of the letter dating May 1966 that Grothendieck sent to Tate mentioning his ideas about generalizing Monsky-Washnitzer cohomology. I am trying to put it in LaTeX, at least for my own reference. So, first of all, do you know if it ever appeared in print somewhere or if the typing has already been done by someone? And, secondly, does anyone has a better-quality file? The big problem with this is that many top and bottom lines are missing, sometimes making it impossible to reconstruct the original sentence.

share|improve this question
    
Did you ever end up writing up the letter? The link in your post doesn't seem to be working, and I can't find the letter elsewhere by googling. –  Dylan Wilson Sep 18 at 14:39
    
I finally gave up my project since the version I had of the letter is quite unreadable. That being said, I re-checked the link tonight and it works on my PC...very strange. If you still have troubles, you can contact me be e-mail and I'll send you my pdf. –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Sep 18 at 20:22
    
weird... it works now. Maybe I had a bad internet connection, or the site was having trouble earlier. Thank you! –  Dylan Wilson Sep 19 at 0:58
    
although it looks like the top of every page is missing a line... which is unfortunate. –  Dylan Wilson Sep 19 at 2:22

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I don't know if this is of any use.... but I believe that the ideas in this letter were written up somewhat later in this article:

Grothendieck, A. Crystals and the de Rham cohomology of schemes. 1968 Dix Exposés sur la Cohomologie des Schémas pp. 306–358 North-Holland, Amsterdam; Masson, Paris

The article is actually some notes by Coates and Jussila of a seminar by Grothendieck. You can find a copy of the article at chapter IX of this book.

share|improve this answer
4  
@Nick: Thanks. Yes, I know that paper by Grothendieck, and I agree that it morally contains the same material, expecially including connections with M-W cohomology. But I like the original one, where he also explains the choice of the noun "crystal" and it gives the feeling of listening to a phone call between friends ;-) –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Jun 5 '13 at 9:51

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.