The book by Mashaal and a book by Aczel (which I enjoyed) were reviewed by Michael Atiyah (1966 Fields Medalist): "Bourbaki, A Secret Society of Mathematicians" (Maurice Mashaal) and "The Artist and the Mathematician" (Amir Aczel) - Notices of the American Mathematical Society, v. 54, no. 9, October, 2007 - https://www.ams.org/notices/200709/tx070901150p.pdf
There have been numerous articles about Bourbaki, including some by former Bourbaki members:
It's interesting that while Bourbaki had a large influence on modern mathematics, very few people read their books (at least among the people I know). In a sense, their project of producing a definitive exposition for a large part of mathematics has failed. I wonder whether it's because different branches of mathematics have their unique personalities, and therefore the attempt to provide a unified point of view are bound to fail.
I was applying a unfair standard to them of course. Every field has a few classics that last a long time, but most old books are not read. But I think Bourbaki maybe had grand ambitions that were eventually unrealized. My theory is that the presentation of mathematics is not based on unifying principles, but rather on the collective taste of mathematicians. So what end up being the most popular books is based on how the collective taste evolve.
Yes, Whitaker & Watson (analysis), Hardy and Wright (number theory), Dieudonne (analysis and he was literally a Bourbaki member), heck, Euclid's Elements; Gauss Disquisitiones, etc. Bourbaki is more of a monument. Writing it was necessary, but for readers it suffices to know that it is there ;).
while it's certainly not read by most mathematicians, Bourbaki (especially set theory & general topology) are still quite often read by mathematicians in training I believe.
they provided a unified point of view by explaining it all in terms of sets
ultimately they failed because they wrote such that it didn't matter if other people understood. it's a style that is only intelligible if you already know (from some other experience) what they are describing.
The book by Mashaal and a book by Aczel (which I enjoyed) were reviewed by Michael Atiyah (1966 Fields Medalist): "Bourbaki, A Secret Society of Mathematicians" (Maurice Mashaal) and "The Artist and the Mathematician" (Amir Aczel) - Notices of the American Mathematical Society, v. 54, no. 9, October, 2007 - https://www.ams.org/notices/200709/tx070901150p.pdf
There have been numerous articles about Bourbaki, including some by former Bourbaki members:
"The Work of Bourbaki During the Last Thirty Years" - Jean Dieudonne - Notices of the American Mathematical Society, v. 29, no. 7, November, 1982 - https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/198211/198211FullIssue....
"Twenty-Five Years with Nicolas Bourbaki, 1949–1973" - Armand Borel - Notices of the American Mathematical Society, v. 45, no. 3, March, 1998 - https://www.ams.org//journals/notices/199803/borel.pdf
Edit: fixed typo
It's interesting that while Bourbaki had a large influence on modern mathematics, very few people read their books (at least among the people I know). In a sense, their project of producing a definitive exposition for a large part of mathematics has failed. I wonder whether it's because different branches of mathematics have their unique personalities, and therefore the attempt to provide a unified point of view are bound to fail.
Also mathematicians tend to not read "the classics" of the field. Do the people you know read other math books from the same time period?
I was applying a unfair standard to them of course. Every field has a few classics that last a long time, but most old books are not read. But I think Bourbaki maybe had grand ambitions that were eventually unrealized. My theory is that the presentation of mathematics is not based on unifying principles, but rather on the collective taste of mathematicians. So what end up being the most popular books is based on how the collective taste evolve.
Yes, Whitaker & Watson (analysis), Hardy and Wright (number theory), Dieudonne (analysis and he was literally a Bourbaki member), heck, Euclid's Elements; Gauss Disquisitiones, etc. Bourbaki is more of a monument. Writing it was necessary, but for readers it suffices to know that it is there ;).
while it's certainly not read by most mathematicians, Bourbaki (especially set theory & general topology) are still quite often read by mathematicians in training I believe.
The set theory book is, at best, very outdated. No idea about topology.
General Topology is valuable, especially for the filter perspective; so are some of the Algebra volumes.
they provided a unified point of view by explaining it all in terms of sets
ultimately they failed because they wrote such that it didn't matter if other people understood. it's a style that is only intelligible if you already know (from some other experience) what they are describing.
We had our own: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nickb
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Book is from 2006, title should note this. Publication page: https://bookstore.ams.org/bourbaki
The link seems broken, points to books.google.com for me
this is the link I posted. not sure why it got modified
https://books.google.ae/books?id=-CXn6y_1nJ8C&pg=PA18&redir_...
If you want a very deep rabbit hole to go down, look into the connections between the Bourbaki group and Twenty One Pilots lore :)
He goes by Nico, fwiw.
https://www.google.com.do/books/edition/Bourbaki/-CXn6y_1nJ8...
this one?
https://books.google.ae/books?id=-CXn6y_1nJ8C&pg=PA18&redir_...
yes, this is the original link I submitted. not sure why it was modified.
"secret society" -> "anonymous publishing group"
Potato -> Po Ta To
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/3E6yBbwom9rEqqMnE5m75
imagine having to rigorously prove that blood is really essential for the survival of a human being before every surgery, thanks Bourbaki. /s