27 Feb
2014
27 Feb
'14
6:55 p.m.
It seems to me I somewhere read that Eilenberg told his students you should not be able to explain a theorem you prove. That is, the right proof of the right theorem will clearer itself than any purported explanation could. Can anyone give me a good source for that, or for something like it? Or is it just not a reliable memory? best, Colin [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]