Timeline for Gossip about Grothendieck and distributive lattices
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2022 at 10:15 | answer | added | coudy | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 28, 2021 at 19:40 | comment | added | Tri | @Richard Borcherds I may be overly sensitive as a devotee of lattice theory, but Professor Rota did say, "Never in the history of mathematics has a mathematical theory been the object of such vociferous vituperation as lattice theory." Your remark appears to me to be saying there isn't much to the theory of distributive lattices. I guess I can only refer you to your Berkeley colleagues George Bergman and Ralph McKenzie, who may have differing opinions. The late Professor Birkhoff at Harvard can't reply, but Professor Priestley at Oxford University may have some thoughts about distributivity. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 23:19 | comment | added | Wlod AA | Gian-Carlo Rota's question (or whoever) is unethical. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 21:56 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 26, 2020 at 16:45 | |||||
| Apr 21, 2020 at 21:53 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| S Apr 21, 2020 at 21:16 | history | suggested | Mark Schultz-Wu |
Tag was about the wrong kind of lattices.
|
|
| Apr 21, 2020 at 20:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 21, 2020 at 21:16 | |||||
| Oct 10, 2010 at 6:13 | comment | added | David Corwin | There's only one way to find out: Go and find Grothendieck and teach him about distributive lattices. | |
| Oct 10, 2010 at 6:05 | history | edited | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 20, 2010 at 19:06 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Mariano, I have slightly revised my opinion (based on reading the relevant passage in I.T.) Perhaps you could add in the rest of that paragraph, to give background context? It seems pertinent that the sentence before the one you quote mentions "pointless topology". | |
| Sep 20, 2010 at 17:48 | history | edited | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 51 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2010 at 14:33 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 25 | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 23:16 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | I don't think I can improve the question: I wanted to know the answer to Rota's question! Of course, given the context I could very well settle for «What did Rota think that would have happened?» too (and this looks like an unanswerable question, but I don't think it is; the possible answer may not be mathematical, but the result of mathematical knowledge and familiarity with his, Grothendieck's work, lattice theory and what not) | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 11:23 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I'd like to see this stay open. As Ben says, the speculation (and tendentiousness, for that matter) is Rota's, not Mariano's. I've often wondered myself what the heck Rota meant here, and suspect: not all that much. (The example of the Chinese remainder theorem doesn't exactly bowl me over.) | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 10:44 | answer | added | Marko Amnell | timeline score: 43 | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 8:28 | answer | added | Charles Matthews | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 4:28 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I am inclined to agree with Andy Putman's comments - as it stands, the question reads as too speculative, and seems to have two rather different interpretations. Voting to close, in the hope of seeing an improved version from Mariano. | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 3:50 | answer | added | Justin Hilburn | timeline score: 12 | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 3:38 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @Ben : What questions do you think Rota will show up to answer? <grin> | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 3:27 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | @Mark, (1) appears to be exactly your question, from your first comment, not Mariano's. The first statement of (2) appears only in your second comment. It should be very easy for Mariano to fix this question so that it does not appear as if we're giving a green light to all "what would have happened had X known Y" questions. | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 3:22 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | I read the question as more of a "What did Rota think would happen?" Unlike some questions, I don't think Rota is going to show up and answer it for us, but I think it is an answerable question. | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 3:14 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @Mark : That would be a fine question, but it wasn't how I read the question. Rather, it sounded to me like "Imagine Grothendieck had gotten interested in distributive lattices and became an expert. What sorts of theorems would he have proven?". @Mariano : Which of us had the correct interpretation? Maybe you should edit the question to make it clearer. | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 3:09 | comment | added | user6976 | @Ryan: The question is pretty concrete. I read it as 1) what part of the distributive lattice theory did Grothendieck reinvent? and 2) what part of his theory follows from known facts about distributive lattices? None of these questions is "speculative". | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 2:31 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | What would have happened if X had known Y questions are quite speculative and easy to generate. IMO without more background data on why this would be of interest to anyone, I don't think this is the right forum for the question. | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 2:15 | comment | added | user6976 | @Richard: Do you know what part of the theory of distributive lattices did Grothendieck reinvent? There are $>3200$ papers about distributive lattices according to MathSci. I am not sure Grothendieck could invent all that in 2 hours. I do think that the question is appropriate for MO, and would like to see an answer from somebody well informed. | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 2:12 | comment | added | José Hdz. Stgo. | Please don't undo the retagging. Just because the name Grothendieck appears in it, does not make it a real AG question. | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 2:09 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 19, 2010 at 0:13 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | @Gjergji: Ahhh: interesting. @Richard, heh: he assumes an amusing extatic tone when mentioning distributive lattice throughout the book :) | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 0:11 | comment | added | Gjergji Zaimi | This seems relevant springerlink.com/content/57711447485q6724 , but I don't know if what Rota had in mind was advancing Hilbert's program... | |
| Sep 19, 2010 at 0:06 | comment | added | Richard Borcherds | If Grothendieck had known the theory of distributive lattices then he would not have had to waste a couple of hours reinventing it. Gian-Carlo Rota got overexcited about some routine lattice theory Grothendieck developed in EGA; apparently Grothendieck either didnt know or didnt care that it was already known. | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 23:52 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I agree with Andy, but I voted it up just because I like your style. When you break the rules, you might as well shatter them. =p | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 23:39 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | @Andry, not really. I really wonder what he has in mind... I'm asking here because someone might be aware, although I more or less do not expect the answer to be in the form of a reference or something as definitive as that. | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 23:36 | comment | added | Andy Putman | This strikes me as being pretty speculative. Is there any way tighten it into a question that admits some kind of reasonable answer? | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 23:21 | history | rollback | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Sep 18, 2010 at 23:18 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 18, 2010 at 23:17 | history | asked | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | CC BY-SA 2.5 |