Skip to main content

Timeline for Is Grothendieck a computer?

Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5

23 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Jun 27, 2013 at 11:41 answer added Ivan Meir timeline score: 0
Jul 6, 2012 at 13:07 comment added Buschi Sergio If Yes, only someone like him could have program a like-him computer...
Jul 6, 2012 at 0:20 answer added John Pardon timeline score: 8
Jul 5, 2012 at 23:50 answer added o a timeline score: 1
Dec 11, 2010 at 16:18 comment added sleepless in beantown @Donu-Arapura, it's a bit like the hundreds upon hundreds of books that were typed and produced by Isaac Asimov, another entry in the "really an ordinary human" category (or perhaps there's a reason that Asimov wrote so many stories about robots and "positronic brains") .
Dec 11, 2010 at 14:37 comment added Donu Arapura I realize the title is a bit of a joke. But perhaps there is something to it. I have wondered, could an ordinary human possibly produce so many thousands of pages of output?
Dec 11, 2010 at 12:17 history edited Minhyong Kim CC BY-SA 2.5
added 191 characters in body; edited title
Dec 11, 2010 at 11:22 comment added Pierre-Yves Gaillard I suggest to change the title to "Is Grothendieck a computer?" (instead of "Was Grothendieck a computer?").
Dec 11, 2010 at 0:51 answer added Kimball timeline score: 3
Dec 10, 2010 at 18:42 answer added Michael Renardy timeline score: 5
Dec 10, 2010 at 14:57 answer added Allen Knutson timeline score: 10
Dec 10, 2010 at 14:17 comment added Thierry Zell @Alberto: Of course, Grothendieck is on the record as a fervent computer-hater, so I doubt this would make him laugh... (which makes the title even funnier to me).
Dec 10, 2010 at 14:05 comment added Minhyong Kim Tim van Baek: I suppose I'm applying the usual 'computer is software' prejudice. I agree it could be a very limiting view.
Dec 10, 2010 at 13:07 comment added sleepless in beantown I would submit that all good mathematical proofs and trains of thoughts are "like a computer"; my point being that a proof must be clear and precise and lacking ambiguity, with steps that follow from one on to the next, and connecting links that show why this must be the path that is followed. It is finding the proof that is the artistry in mathematics. Following a proof presented by someone else is like being a "computer" (in the steady-path sense, not the "calculating" numerical-sense) in not jumping to conclusions or taking anything for granted.
Dec 10, 2010 at 12:39 comment added Tim van Beek Sorry if this question is not appropriate, but what meand "typically computer-like thinking" to someone who does not have a working knowledge of the principles of microprocessor design?
Dec 10, 2010 at 10:26 history edited KConrad CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 2 characters in body
Dec 10, 2010 at 10:08 comment added Georges Elencwajg Submit candidate to Turing test.
Dec 10, 2010 at 7:21 comment added Chandan Singh Dalawat Certainly Russell and Whitehead were "computers": it seems everything in their Principia could be proved by computers in the 80s in a couple of minutes.
Dec 10, 2010 at 4:03 comment added Dan Ramras After having a conversation in the hall today about whether or not Grothendieck spent time computing things, I thought the title meant something else...
Dec 10, 2010 at 3:46 comment added Alicia Garcia-Raboso +1: the title made me laugh.
Dec 10, 2010 at 2:58 answer added Daniel Moskovich timeline score: 34
Dec 10, 2010 at 2:00 history asked Minhyong Kim CC BY-SA 2.5