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 |