Peter Percival <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > >> Quite so. Grothendieck, for instance (as we all well know) in a >> seminal display of mathematical prowess managed to simplify an 80 >> page paper of Serre into over a thousand pages of abstract nonsense >> in _Eléments de Géométrie Algébrique_. That this was not a surreal >> exercise in deranged mathematical performance art is a perfect >> illustration of what's at issue when we in mathematics speak of >> "motivation". > > Beilinson has mixed motives. > 'I'll get my coat' comes next, I think.
Tee-hee. In an odd coincidence, I was in fact in my post being both completely serious (albeit in my usual facetious style), but also attempting a rather extraordinarily inept and hamfisted mathematical in-joke. I was, you see, side-splittingly humorously, and very very wittily, trading on the absolutely riotously amusing fact that "motive" is a technical term in certain mathematical circles, in addition to its usual everyday use, ha-ha-ha-ha. I'd really rather hoped no-one would catch on that.
-- Aatu Koskensilta (email@example.com)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus