From Quanta Magazine on Monday, May 6, 2024, in
"A Rosetta Stone for Mathematics," by Kevin Hartnett —
" Then he came to the main point of his letter:
He was building such a bridge. He wrote,
'Just as God defeats the devil: this bridge exists.'
The bridge that Weil proposed
is the study of finite fields…."
This is damned nonsense.
From Log24 on June 23, 2005 —
|
In “A 1940 Letter of André Weil on Analogy in Mathematics,” (pdf), translated by Martin H. Krieger, Notices of the A.M.S., March 2005, Weil writes that “The purely algebraic theory of algebraic functions in any arbitrary field of constants is not rich enough so that one might draw useful lessons from it. The ‘classical’ theory (that is, Riemannian) of algebraic functions over the field of constants of the complex numbers is infinitely richer; but on the one hand it is too much so, and in the mass of facts some real analogies become lost; and above all, it is too far from the theory of numbers. One would be totally obstructed if there were not a bridge between the two. And just as God defeats the devil: this bridge exists; it is the theory of the field of algebraic functions over a finite field of constants…. On the other hand, between the function fields and the ‘Riemannian’ fields, the distance is not so large that a patient study would not teach us the art of passing from one to the other, and to profit in the study of the first from knowledge acquired about the second, and of the extremely powerful means offered to us, in the study of the latter, from the integral calculus and the theory of analytic functions. That is not to say that at best all will be easy; but one ends up by learning to see something there, although it is still somewhat confused. Intuition makes much of it; I mean by this the faculty of seeing a connection between things that in appearance are completely different; it does not fail to lead us astray quite often. Be that as it may, my work consists in deciphering a trilingual text {[cf. the Rosetta Stone]}; of each of the three columns I have only disparate fragments; I have some ideas about each of the three languages: but I know as well there are great differences in meaning from one column to another, for which nothing has prepared me in advance. In the several years I have worked at it, I have found little pieces of the dictionary. Sometimes I worked on one column, sometimes under another.” |
Quanta Magazine's statement:
"The bridge that Weil proposed
is the study of finite fields…."
Here "the study of finite fields" is a contemptibly distorted
dumbing-down of Weil's phrase
"the theory of the field of algebraic functions
over a finite field of constants."
For that topic, see (for instance) . . .
Update at 5:35 PM ET —A different reaction to the Hartnett article —
