Yes Vaughan, I agree with your point "up to a point", and this is an interesting topic to discuss (see Point 2) below). But I was raising another point, much more simple. Point 1) It was about the notation "U_{i_0..i_p}". If you understand the mathematics, then whether this stands for the intersection, the union, or any other known construction with the U_i_j, it should be clear which one is. So it seemed to me ridiculous that people in the list, all mathematicians, start discussing and speculating about possible meanings of "U_{i_0..i_p}". Then, I just wrote: "I am wondering, nobody can read the mathematics and come up with what Grothendieck meant !!!" (I should have added "by U_{i_0..i_p}". Point 2) Concerning Vaughan point, I tend to think that making the effort to read and understand the originals gives you an ADVANTAGE. Thus, even if I agree with "that one need not read Galois in order to learn Galois theory", I also think that if you read Galois, you will know Galois theory better. And of course, this goes without saying concerning Grothendieck. I suspect that all the great mathematicians had learned and/or Known the work of their great predecessor (or at least the ones not to distant in time) from the original sources. e.d.
Vaughan
Vaughan Pratt wrote:
All I am saying is that one need not read Galois in order to learn Galois theory. When a new idea is introduced, even if it is not explained so clearly that everyone understands it right away, as long as someone understands it and can rephrase it in a helpful way, the impact of the idea has been not only felt but disseminated. Dissemination is not always a single step.
Vaughan
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]