Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Earlier Thoughts that Inspired Grothendieck (2014) [pdf] (uu.nl)
35 points by jeffreyrogers on March 18, 2019 | hide | past | favorite | 16 comments


Tangent but related: is there any serious study into why so many of the greatest minds in mathematics have/had serious mental health issues?


i have a personal, not necessarily scientific opinion on this. i think that certain minds are so above normal life that they are able to creatively push the bounds of our knowledge. now, since life is a flawed beast of chaos and disorder, these minds that have high creative but yet logical horsepower are not able to deal with the shortcomings of humanity. they could also fall into this trap of "everyone says i am wrong, but they were wrong before when i was right, so it's the case again". i think it's these facts coupled with the fact that depression can be described as people who understand the world as it truly is but can't handle it or ignore it like everyone else.

have you ever dealt with someone so illogical it just drives you mad? now think if everyone you met felt like that.

i actually don't know much about godel, but his work on logic, computation, and general relativity seems to be of the flavor "the world may not be as you think it is". that type of work could take its toll, and something did.


A cursory search yields that actually mental health is correlated with academic achievement (and thus mental health problems must be anticorrelated):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443903/

Of course, this is "academic achievement" as in getting a 4.0 at Stanford, not creating a new field of mathematics...

I imagine your question would be hard to investigate as many of these high achieving mathematicians are rare outliers and would defy statistics on population averages...


Given the way mental disorders are defined, that's kind of unsurprising; adverse impacts to work, school, etc are required to diagnose many disorders.


Well, of course, Cantor, Gödel, Nash, Grothendieck, these are not everyday people.


What makes you think Grothendieck had mental health issues?


Among other things, in Lettre de la Bonne Nouvelle he described his encounters with a deity.


TL;DR: yes.

Are there candidate examples of ideas in philosophy, natural sciences or maths that are so original that only a single mind could think of them?


Einstein came up with the idea that light would behave like particle. He published the paper in 1905 where he eloquently explained his thinking and gave three examples demonstrating it. One of the examples was the photoelectric effect. He won a Nobel price for that discovery.

>Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localised at points in space, moving without dividing and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.

Plank had explained black body radiation as it would originate from quantified oscillators 1900, but nobody except Einstein believed that light could propagate as energy quanta. Only after Compton effect was discovered in 1923, everybody saw that Einstein had been on the right track all along.

Being the only physicist who saw it for almost 20 years, even when everybody has read your explanation and takes you seriously is a sign of highly original mind.


The Fizeau experiment definitely had some people thinking.

For more on that and Planck, see https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4t1n... (From c-numbers to q-numbers by Olivier Darrigol) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute#Ol...


General relativity, or maybe some stuff that Ramanujan figured out? But probably other people would have eventually figured those things out if they thought about them long enough. In general I think the answer is no. There's a fascinating book called The Sociology of Philosophies that explores this question. The author's main idea is that intellectual ideas arise from competition and variation among different intellectuals who are related to each other through intellectual networks and that only ideas that are creative, but not too creative, get remembered and extended, refined, or rebutted and passed on to later generations of scholars.


GR is not an example: Hilbert deduced the correct action functional (following geometric rather than physical intuition) at roughly the same time as Einstein worked out the (equivalent) field equations. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_act...


yes it is. hilbert has no claims to originating the theory of general relativity, and he had been talking with einstein before this, even inviting him to give talks. einstein already had the ideas of general relativity much earlier than when he, and hilbert, finally published his final theory. hilbert simply had a better command of the mathematics and was able to put things together once einstein had already come up with the physical theory and much of the mathematics.

in fact, einstein was originally a little annoyed with hilbert in that he felt hilbert tried to come in at the end and shore up the final mathematics before einstein could. it isn't as though hilbert was working independently during this time, independently discovering general relativity.


How about Special Relativity? IIRC, Einstein's paper had no references to previous work.


Lorentz symmetry was already kinda-sorta baked into Maxwell’s equations. It was only a matter of time before someone took it seriously.


I'm very rusty in this area, but I thought that people had given credit for Poincare for precursors.

Some Googling revealed this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: