I disagree profoundly with the idea that Grothendieck although a great mathematician was merely an eccentric when he stepped outside mathematics. OK he WAS an eccentric, but who isn´t? What is noteworthy in Grothendieck is how this man in all the tragedy of his life story strives for integrality and coherence. This attitude also is that which makes his mathematics great. But no, one wants to pick him apart, and put his discoveries on the sterile shelves of positive science. Of the Great Science Museum, with all of its dust. When he left the world of institutionalized science, he did so leaving a message: that was the whole point. The point had to do with the alliances of science with technology in service of militarism, arrogance, and selfishness. That protest should not be ridiculed. It is a very real protest against a very real evil. Grothendieck was very much a visionary and not only mathematically.
@@pierre-yveschauvet5136 Pierre i think you missed his point. Grothendieck contributed to the world with much more than just his mathematics (which itself was supremely profound in its intelligence and scope) and noone denies that. His lived his life with complete integrity and compassion, which his companions often mistook it for naivety, unfortunately. The comment talks about how people find it easy to pick grothendieck apart OUTSIDE of mathematics like he didn't know what he was doing, when in reality it seemed like he understood the essentials of living better than any of us did.
In his memoir: Racoltes et semeilles, he does a thorough sociological description of the common attitudes of mathematicians. He was by those standards an eccentric, and exception to the rule. He explains that he approaches mathematical problems differently.
Outstanding! What an absolutely fascinating podcast! Dr. Lisker provides the details of Grothendieck's genius, and his eccentricity, in a brilliant conversational fashion. Thank you for sharing this interview.
@Readinganddifference , for example , he would brew his own alcohol at home with his own still, out of plums from his garden. Great smell in the village!
I think the encounter at his home was a previous place, outside a village, right? It was friends of Liskers who met him in his old age, they had been trying to find him.
Where does this guy get off bad-mouthing Grothendieck for 45 minutes? Grothendieck was clearly bitter that none of his colleagues followed him when he tried to stage a walkout at the IHES. However, I don't see evidence that he was delusional or out of his right mind. "We [chose] to go to the moon" to develop rockets that could more easily deliver nuclear warheads to Moscow--not out of the scientific spirit of cooperation. It think it's not so impossible that Grothendieck was naïve during his youth and was shocked/disgusted to learn the truth about how the world operated. Now, in 2022 (and probably later in the 2020's as China and the US fight over control of Taiwan), we're closer than ever to apocalyptically destructive military intervention (at least relative to anything we've yet seen). Why would somebody as conscientious and intelligent as Grothendieck feel compelled to develop his while he felt the world was on the brink of nuclear annihilation?
@@pierre-yveschauvet5136 I reject the premise to your questions: I am not very concerned about the state of the world. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to be. Nevertheless, I'll answer them: Moving to the isolated countryside seems fun/idyllic to me, and is how I like to spend my vacation-time. It probably would make the world more peaceful insofar as it decreases your personal contribution towards making the world more violent. However, if that's your goal, then you should first try to affect others--and only give up after you fail and don't see a path forward.
@@pierre-yveschauvet5136 Violence requires energy; one way to diminish violence is to starve it. More knowledge does not mean less violence--in fact, technology fuels violence. Grothendieck understood this, and his response was to withdraw. I think that's a perfectly sensible thing to do.
@@alexandersanchez9138 Alexander, "violencia" significa transgresión, entropía. La entropía es diametralmente opuesta a la energía. Aquí hay dos falacias evidentes: confundir las imposibilidades conceptuales con lo material; confundir caos con orden.
@30:30 Nice recollections, but I am sorry Roy Lisker was an idiot when it comes to macroeconomics. The student was kind of correct. Spending 800K francs does not "turn it into 8 million francs" but it does produce about 8 million francs worth of economic production. An entire economy can function _in principle_ on a _single_ dollar or franc or €. One person spends it, then the seller spends it on something else, then that second seller spends it to get something else. What drives production in a monetary economy is circulation of currency, not savings. Savings are the accounting records of past investments. (This is why bitcoin and other crypto(non)currencies fail or will ultimately fail, they are (mostly) hoarded for speculation, not circulated, so they are not serving the social purpose of "money things".) Closer to reality, for each transaction typically (in the macro you understand) about 20% gets saved or deleted as tax payment, and the remaining 80% circulated, until the multiplier 0.8^n goes to below a threshold of what is available for sale from the initial issue. It is a macro effect, it does not work fully in the micro (because the very first seller could just bank the amount and not on-spend it, if they currently need no purchases). The tax and savings leakages are what allow a government to issue more currency without inflation bias (the tax return is not funding the government, it is a return, a revenue from Fr. "revenir"). As soon as a seller banks the full amount being left in circulation or purchases some other savings instrument like a Treasury bond or term deposit, then it will stop circulating, the monetary part of the economy will then be dead, unless a bank issues credit or a government issues more by fiat. In the macro the student was correct.
Very Interesting, wish it was long so we could hear all of his eccentric stories. Lisker should write a biography.
Roy just passed away. He has written an abbreviated autobiography on his site.
So much here. I'll be giving this many listens. Thank you. I hope i get to read Alexander's Mothere's autobiograph, it sounds fascinating, 3000 pages!
Thank you for upload, I had also enjoyed this.
I disagree profoundly with the idea that Grothendieck although a great mathematician was merely an eccentric when he stepped outside mathematics. OK he WAS an eccentric, but who isn´t? What is noteworthy in Grothendieck is how this man in all the tragedy of his life story strives for integrality and coherence. This attitude also is that which makes his mathematics great. But no, one wants to pick him apart, and put his discoveries on the sterile shelves of positive science. Of the Great Science Museum, with all of its dust. When he left the world of institutionalized science, he did so leaving a message: that was the whole point. The point had to do with the alliances of science with technology in service of militarism, arrogance, and selfishness. That protest should not be ridiculed. It is a very real protest against a very real evil. Grothendieck was very much a visionary and not only mathematically.
@@pierre-yveschauvet5136 Pierre i think you missed his point. Grothendieck contributed to the world with much more than just his mathematics (which itself was supremely profound in its intelligence and scope) and noone denies that. His lived his life with complete integrity and compassion, which his companions often mistook it for naivety, unfortunately. The comment talks about how people find it easy to pick grothendieck apart OUTSIDE of mathematics like he didn't know what he was doing, when in reality it seemed like he understood the essentials of living better than any of us did.
In his memoir: Racoltes et semeilles, he does a thorough sociological description of the common attitudes of mathematicians. He was by those standards an eccentric, and exception to the rule. He explains that he approaches mathematical problems differently.
OK
Awesome interview! Thanks!
Outstanding! What an absolutely fascinating podcast! Dr. Lisker provides the details of Grothendieck's genius, and his eccentricity, in a brilliant conversational fashion. Thank you for sharing this interview.
Le plus grand mathématicien du 20 iem siécles
Le plus grand de tous les temps
Funny, as Alexander's friend and neighbour, I have never seen or heard of Mr Lisker.
@Readinganddifference , for example , he would brew his own alcohol at home with his own still, out of plums from his garden. Great smell in the village!
You could watch a film (in french), called "l'espace d'un homme", by Hervé Nisic (2006), where you can hear his last recorded words.
I think the encounter at his home was a previous place, outside a village, right?
It was friends of Liskers who met him in his old age, they had been trying to find him.
Where does this guy get off bad-mouthing Grothendieck for 45 minutes? Grothendieck was clearly bitter that none of his colleagues followed him when he tried to stage a walkout at the IHES. However, I don't see evidence that he was delusional or out of his right mind. "We [chose] to go to the moon" to develop rockets that could more easily deliver nuclear warheads to Moscow--not out of the scientific spirit of cooperation. It think it's not so impossible that Grothendieck was naïve during his youth and was shocked/disgusted to learn the truth about how the world operated. Now, in 2022 (and probably later in the 2020's as China and the US fight over control of Taiwan), we're closer than ever to apocalyptically destructive military intervention (at least relative to anything we've yet seen). Why would somebody as conscientious and intelligent as Grothendieck feel compelled to develop his while he felt the world was on the brink of nuclear annihilation?
@@pierre-yveschauvet5136 I reject the premise to your questions: I am not very concerned about the state of the world. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to be. Nevertheless, I'll answer them:
Moving to the isolated countryside seems fun/idyllic to me, and is how I like to spend my vacation-time.
It probably would make the world more peaceful insofar as it decreases your personal contribution towards making the world more violent. However, if that's your goal, then you should first try to affect others--and only give up after you fail and don't see a path forward.
@@pierre-yveschauvet5136 Violence requires energy; one way to diminish violence is to starve it. More knowledge does not mean less violence--in fact, technology fuels violence. Grothendieck understood this, and his response was to withdraw. I think that's a perfectly sensible thing to do.
Fight over control of Taiwan... who is the naive here again? China is a fly compared to the US and Taiwan is clearly much more efficient.
@@alexandersanchez9138 Alexander, "violencia" significa transgresión, entropía. La entropía es diametralmente opuesta a la energía. Aquí hay dos falacias evidentes: confundir las imposibilidades conceptuales con lo material; confundir caos con orden.
Oh wow !
Fascinating!
Great stuff man, thanks
Please invite him again.
Not my video lol. Just spreading memes.
Roy died this was in 2015
what are the names of the people who are participating in the video?
38:22 what's the title in english of book mentioned here ?
Harvest and seeds.
So he was an aspie?
x2 + y2 = 1?
Are you gay right now?
Very interesting, "Visiting Alexander Grothendiéck" by Mohammad Hadi Hedayatzadeh had you read this.
Roy Lisker died in 2019.
@30:30 Nice recollections, but I am sorry Roy Lisker was an idiot when it comes to macroeconomics. The student was kind of correct. Spending 800K francs does not "turn it into 8 million francs" but it does produce about 8 million francs worth of economic production. An entire economy can function _in principle_ on a _single_ dollar or franc or €. One person spends it, then the seller spends it on something else, then that second seller spends it to get something else. What drives production in a monetary economy is circulation of currency, not savings. Savings are the accounting records of past investments. (This is why bitcoin and other crypto(non)currencies fail or will ultimately fail, they are (mostly) hoarded for speculation, not circulated, so they are not serving the social purpose of "money things".)
Closer to reality, for each transaction typically (in the macro you understand) about 20% gets saved or deleted as tax payment, and the remaining 80% circulated, until the multiplier 0.8^n goes to below a threshold of what is available for sale from the initial issue. It is a macro effect, it does not work fully in the micro (because the very first seller could just bank the amount and not on-spend it, if they currently need no purchases).
The tax and savings leakages are what allow a government to issue more currency without inflation bias (the tax return is not funding the government, it is a return, a revenue from Fr. "revenir"). As soon as a seller banks the full amount being left in circulation or purchases some other savings instrument like a Treasury bond or term deposit, then it will stop circulating, the monetary part of the economy will then be dead, unless a bank issues credit or a government issues more by fiat. In the macro the student was correct.
Groethendieck was sent by god …🎉
Who cares about Lisker and his travels and his violin? Just talk about Grothendieck.
Grothedieck is no "silly goose".
silly goose
@@Israel2.3.2 oh come on
Can you translate silly goose ?
@@annassebennani5754 Naive as the chicken or goose in the fable: Henny Penny.