Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@Daniel Barter If I remember correctly (I do not have the book handy and have not used it for several years), the proof you have mentioned appears in Daniel Perrin's "Cours d'algèbre", which refers to Serre's lectures at "École normale supérieure de jeunes filles" in Sèvres. These lectures were available at Arxiv some time ago but unfortunately seem to have disappeared.
There seems to be some misunderstanding, perhaps because of linguistic issues. According to this article (which I was aware of), Grothendieck's papers have not been declared "trésor national" yet. This is (or was) only a project that some people have (or had) in mind. As a side remark, Guy Debord's papers have been declared "trésor national". Both stories are interesting.
Found: home.broadpark.no/~emeyn/tl/radio2.html. "I took the name of Lobachevsky, only for prosodic reasons, just because it fit". (With an emphasis on "only".)
If my memory serves me right, Lehrer made this choice for prosodic reasons only. Or euphonic ones. I mean, it sounds better than other names and fits well. I recall Lehrer talking about that in an interview, to which one could probably find a link on a Youtube channel devoted to him.
(ctd) written anything interesting from a mathematical point of view at this period. Even Quillen did not answer to the letter! It is also true that, from what I have been told, it was almost impossible to "sell" the issues raised by Grothendieck at the time. For instance, Bénabou had discussed the question of higher analogs of bicategories (that is, weak n-categories) with Grothendieck around 1966 but he told me that basically he thought he could not have been "forgiven" to work on such a topic, and that only Grothendieck could be forgiven. I am unsure he has been.
David, thanks for your comments. I hope you did not understand I was claiming nobody had read "Pursuing Stacks" and I am glad you have. But how many precise references to this text could one point out in the literature? It is true that some people present (I am not qualified to judge whether they are right or not) their work as solutions to questions raised by Grothendieck, but what has been written about the solutions brought by Grothendieck himself? This is something which I find very sad, but for many years most people seem to have been thinking that Grothendieck could not have (ctd)
Thanks. I have not looked at the details, mainly because I was in fact not asking for a proof, but rather a reference. I knew that the classical proof that, say, arbitrary multiplication in a monoid is well-defined, could be adapted to show the coherence result here. The fact which I find disturbing is that there does not seem to be any published text containing both a rigorous statement and a rigorous proof.
