As a former (3-time) MathPath student, I have the feeling I’ve seen you before. I must admit that it’s only a feeling.
As far as Grothendieck goes, I think he is simply channeling Buddhism’s concept of beginner’s mind. Nothing new, really. Most quotes are null-content “yes I’m a human” type things. The main problem I have with your post is that none of it is math-specific; take out the “math” repetition, the few mentions of calculus etc., and it’s simply a generic description of ability.
As far as Grothendieck goes, I think he is simply channeling Buddhism’s concept of beginner’s mind.
I don’t have the experience that people who are serious about beginner’s mind speak of how other people in their age group are much more brilliant, much more “gifted”.
As a former (3-time) MathPath student, I have the feeling I’ve seen you before. I must admit that it’s only a feeling.
I was there in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
As far as Grothendieck goes, I think he is simply channeling Buddhism’s concept of beginner’s mind.
I think that there’s some overlap, but that’s not all of it. The quotation is taken from a much larger document that he wrote. Maybe it’s not realistic to expect people to be able to guess with so little context. Anyway, more will be forthcoming.
The main problem I have with your post is that none of it is math-specific; take out the “math” repetition, the few mentions of calculus etc., and it’s simply a generic description of ability.
I’ve said very little about what mathematical ability is in this post, it’s the first of a sequence and I’ll write more about things specific to mathematical in my upcoming posts. However, I’m also not sure what you mean. A large fraction of the post is about the math SAT and cognitive abilities that are more relevant to math than they are to most other activities.
Your rewriting feels strained to me, but regardless, the issue is of little consequence – like I said, I’ll be getting into the particulars of math more soon.
As a former (3-time) MathPath student, I have the feeling I’ve seen you before. I must admit that it’s only a feeling.
As far as Grothendieck goes, I think he is simply channeling Buddhism’s concept of beginner’s mind. Nothing new, really. Most quotes are null-content “yes I’m a human” type things. The main problem I have with your post is that none of it is math-specific; take out the “math” repetition, the few mentions of calculus etc., and it’s simply a generic description of ability.
I don’t have the experience that people who are serious about beginner’s mind speak of how other people in their age group are much more brilliant, much more “gifted”.
I was there in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
I think that there’s some overlap, but that’s not all of it. The quotation is taken from a much larger document that he wrote. Maybe it’s not realistic to expect people to be able to guess with so little context. Anyway, more will be forthcoming.
I’ve said very little about what mathematical ability is in this post, it’s the first of a sequence and I’ll write more about things specific to mathematical in my upcoming posts. However, I’m also not sure what you mean. A large fraction of the post is about the math SAT and cognitive abilities that are more relevant to math than they are to most other activities.
I was there 2005-2007.
I just rewrote your post to be about me / Steve Jobs instead of you / Grothendieck, see http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/lpp/a_long_comment/. Maybe you can understand what I mean about the post “mostly not being about math”.
Right, so we did overlap, and probably interacted at least a little bit.
Your rewriting feels strained to me, but regardless, the issue is of little consequence – like I said, I’ll be getting into the particulars of math more soon.