К предыдущему
Sep. 14th, 2017 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
posicAs compared to Amnon's view expressed in his statement below, my view is that the main problem of the present-day homological algebra is that it has become too democratized, too accessible, looking from the superficial point of view of all too many of its students.
I agree that all too many algebraists (commutative algebraists, representation theorists etc.) are still afraid of homological algebra deep in their hearts, having not mastered some of its long well-known, elementary constructions and arguments. I certainly hope that Amnon's book, as well as other books, will help these people feel more at ease with the subject.
What worries me, though, is a different phenomenon most commonly observed in young people doing what they call "mathematical physics", or "homological field theory", or suchlike. It looks as if these people sincerely believed that all the homological algebra anyone needs to know can be presented in a single year-long graduate course, or at most in two such courses.
The mindset is that homological algebra is a rather small toolbox, a closed list of universally applicable constructions, definitions, theorems, and points of view perfectly capable of resolving all the homological algebra-related problems that may appear in one's research. No new tools or new concepts ever need to be developed, learned, or added to the box; rather, all one ever needs to do with one's homological algebra problems is to apply the given tools in the right order.
Many mathematicians may be totally unconcerned about whatever winds are blowing in the mathematical physics community. Perhaps it is just a peculiarity of my personal background, in which mathematical physicists -- meaning mathematicians by training who turned to quantum field theory-related mathematics later in their research lives -- played a prominent role, that forces me to pay attention.
Be it as it may, my chief concern in the later yeas has been not with how people learn to use derived categories in their research, but with how people unlearn the notion that all they need to know about the derived categories is contained in their preferred textbook. Thus, while Amnon's efforts may be directed towards making homological algebra more accessible to its students, my efforts tend to be directed towards making it less accessible to the ignoramuses.
The point is that the people who are not afraid of the mysterious, the people who are prepared to learn and study nontrivial, counterintuitive things, should have a competitive advantage over those who do not share these qualities. I hope that my efforts will result in there being more mysterious, nontrivial, and counterintuitive, still highly relevant material in homological algebra for such an advantage to be realized.
I agree that all too many algebraists (commutative algebraists, representation theorists etc.) are still afraid of homological algebra deep in their hearts, having not mastered some of its long well-known, elementary constructions and arguments. I certainly hope that Amnon's book, as well as other books, will help these people feel more at ease with the subject.
What worries me, though, is a different phenomenon most commonly observed in young people doing what they call "mathematical physics", or "homological field theory", or suchlike. It looks as if these people sincerely believed that all the homological algebra anyone needs to know can be presented in a single year-long graduate course, or at most in two such courses.
The mindset is that homological algebra is a rather small toolbox, a closed list of universally applicable constructions, definitions, theorems, and points of view perfectly capable of resolving all the homological algebra-related problems that may appear in one's research. No new tools or new concepts ever need to be developed, learned, or added to the box; rather, all one ever needs to do with one's homological algebra problems is to apply the given tools in the right order.
Many mathematicians may be totally unconcerned about whatever winds are blowing in the mathematical physics community. Perhaps it is just a peculiarity of my personal background, in which mathematical physicists -- meaning mathematicians by training who turned to quantum field theory-related mathematics later in their research lives -- played a prominent role, that forces me to pay attention.
Be it as it may, my chief concern in the later yeas has been not with how people learn to use derived categories in their research, but with how people unlearn the notion that all they need to know about the derived categories is contained in their preferred textbook. Thus, while Amnon's efforts may be directed towards making homological algebra more accessible to its students, my efforts tend to be directed towards making it less accessible to the ignoramuses.
The point is that the people who are not afraid of the mysterious, the people who are prepared to learn and study nontrivial, counterintuitive things, should have a competitive advantage over those who do not share these qualities. I hope that my efforts will result in there being more mysterious, nontrivial, and counterintuitive, still highly relevant material in homological algebra for such an advantage to be realized.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:13 pm (UTC)Что такое "таинственность" я не очень понимаю. Если есть общепризнанные книжки, то их можно прочитать.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:24 pm (UTC)На мой взгляд, если подумать, смысл этих слов достаточно ясен, и состоит он в следующем. "Трудное" -- это то, для овладения чем требуется усидчивость и трудолюбие. "Таинственное" -- это то, для понимания чего требуется проницательность и талант. Цель книги Йекутиели состоит, таким образом, в том, чтобы сделать производные категории доступными для трудолюбивого, но бесталанного студента.
Это идет в русле всей современной тенденции в мировом, в том числе/в первую очередь, западном образовании: для того, чтобы получить любую степень от аттестата о неполном среднем до хабилитации, все в большей степени нужны не ум и талант, а готовность упорно просиживать штаны. То, что по-английски называется perseverance.
Я бы видел своей целью прямо противоположное. Максимизировать преимущество талантливых над бесталанными в математике.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:54 pm (UTC)Кстати, мне не очень понятно, что такое "работать с производными категориями". С какой, собственно, целью работать? Если область "таинственна", то логично было бы перечислить несколько утверждений, которыми часто пользуются "на практике" - а не писать целую книжку.:)
no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 03:07 pm (UTC)"The definitions and the statements [in EGA and Hartshorne] are precise, and the proofs are available (to be read or to be taken on trust, as the reader prefers)."
Видимо, имеется в виду, что по гомологической алгебре такого источника ссылок до сих пор не было.
Но я не читал книжку Амнона дальше параграфа с притягивающим глаз названием "Credo, Writing Style and Goals" (откуда выписана моя цитата), и вовсе не хотел бы ее подробно разбирать и критиковать (за пределами этой цитаты). Независимо от того, заслуживает ли она, на самом деле, критики или, наоборот, похвалы (чего я не знаю, т.к., еще раз, не читал).
no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-14 03:43 pm (UTC)Гомологическая алгебра в целом гораздо контринтуитивнее алгебраической геометрии. С другой стороны, доказательства базовых результатов гомологической алгебры славятся в народе своей прямолинейностью. (Ср. известное упражнение из "Алгебры" Ленга.) Что может получиться, если народ примется пользоваться теоремами гомологической алгебры, не понимая их доказательств -- что ж, на это, наверное, интересно было бы поглядеть. В принципе, я вовсе не против. Все к лучшему в этом лучшем из миров, как говорится.