[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/db/dbal.php on line 110: Undefined array key "cached"
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/db/dbal.php on line 111: Undefined array key "normal"
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/db/dbal.php on line 112: Undefined array key "total"
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 885: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:2922)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 885: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:2922)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 885: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:2922)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3393: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:2922)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3395: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:2922)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3396: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:2922)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3397: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:2922)
长途大巴 • 阅读主题 - 印度行纪

印度行纪

Re: 印度行纪

帖子Motif 在 05 Sep 2010, 21:32

印度行纪(四)

再来说说几个我比较感兴趣的Lectures。数论方面的有
C. Breuil, IHES, France
The emerging p-adic Langlands programme;

K. S. Kedlaya, MIT, USA
Relative p-adic Hodge Theory and Rapoport-Zink period domains;

M. Kisin, Harvard University, USA
The structure of potentially semi-stable deformation rings;

K. Soundararajan, Stanford University, USA
Quantum unique ergodicity and number theory;

R. Greenberg, University of Washington, USA
Selmer groups and congruences

A. Venkatesh, Stanford University, USA
Statistics of number fields and function fields

T. Saito, University of Tokyo, Japan
Wild ramification of schemes and sheaves

S. Morel, Harvard University, USA
The intersection complex as a weight truncation and an application to Shimura
Varieties
其中K. S. Kedlaya和K. Soundararajan都是印度人,是现在数学界的新秀,K. Soundararajan获奖的呼声很高。

在Algebraic and Complex Geometry方面,有:
R. Thomas, Imperial College, London, UK
An exercise in mirror symmetry

S. Saito, University of Tokyo, Japan
Cohomological Hasse principle and motivic cohomology

D. Kaledin, Independent University of Moscow, Russia
Motivic structures in non-commutative geometry

C-C. M. Liu, Columbia University, USA
Gromov-Witten theory of Calabi-Yau 3-folds

V. Srinivas, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India
Algebraic cycles on singular varieties

R. Thomas这哥们挺搞笑的,他是topology组的Chair,穿着条沙滩裤,踩着双拖鞋,在那里吊来吊去,据gowers说,这哥们相当崇敬Jacob Lurie,觉得Lurie的工作将会革新一部分数学。

Geometry的就只听了麻小南的一个报告,
X. Ma, Institut de Math´ematiques de Jussieu, Paris, France
Geometric quantization on K¨ahler and symplectic manifolds;
麻小南的报告很精彩,报告他和别人合作解决了上一届ICM上一个法国女数学家提出的一个猜想。

Topology 组的听了两个:
D. Gabai, Princeton University, USA
Hyperbolic geometry in the 2000s

J. Lurie, Harvard University, USA
Moduli problems for ring spectra;

Gabai,Princeton的教授,讲话很有特色,比较轻柔,看上去是那种大智若愚,天才型的数学家,他在低维拓扑理做了很多非常重要的工作。
Lurie曾在普林斯顿高等研究院做过maston.morse 年度演讲,看来IAS的那些大佬们很欣赏他的工作。Lurie讲了他的大框架理论里的一个小脚手架,向人们描述了他现在做的东西的一个概貌,我估计连概貌都算不上,他的语速很快,讲到最后,似乎还没有把他的准备的内容讲完。我很看好lurie的工作,给我的感觉是,他在弄一套全新的理论,而且,在某种 special case的情况下,与经典理论有很好的吻合。在与gaitsgory的一篇文章里讲了如何把他的关于环的谱理论应用于代数群的表示论。感觉他的看家本领还是代数拓扑里面的东西,他的环论是加了代数拓扑结构的,也就是附带上homotopy group的结构,这样,自然就与非交换几何联系上了,貌似可以扯的很广。下面我摘录了一段Gowers的关于Lurie话,可以当八卦看看:
That was the regular 1.45-2.45 slot. I then had to decide which talks to go to in the parallel sessions. I decided on two prodigies: Marianna Csörnyei and Jacob Lurie. Marianna I have known quite well for many years, and she works in areas that I can be expected to understand reasonably well (which is not quite the same as saying that I do understand them reasonably well, but in fact I do usually follow quite a bit of her talks). Jacob Lurie is the opposite: I had never met him, or even seen him, and had absolutely no chance of understanding anything he would say, so I was going for the sole purpose of gawping.
Why do I describe them both as prodigies? Well, in Marianna’s case there are some extraordinary anecdotes about how David Preiss, then at University College London and now at Warwick, brought her over to England at some extremely young age such as 18 (I can’t remember exactly) and set her unsolved problems with deadlines of, say, 48 hours. In case you want me to confirm what I’ve just written, I do indeed mean that he would say things like, “This is an interesting unsolved problem: you have until the day after tomorrow to tell me the answer.” And the even more extraordinary thing was that Marianna would indeed come back two days later with the answer. And I’m not talking about something that happened just once: it was a regular occurrence. The problems were things like finding sets of real numbers with extraordinary properties, and to solve them Marianna would produce incredibly delicate inductive constructions of sequences of sets that would tend to a limit with the desired properties. I think there are similar stories about Jacob Lurie — I heard about professional mathematicians consulting him when he was about 16 and getting the answers they sought the next day. And the amazing thing was that it wasn’t amazing — they consulted him because they knew he would be able to do it.
While I’m on this subject, let me counteract it with another story, that of James McKernan. He was an undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge in the same year that I was. I did not know him all that well (there were 40 of us), but I remember him as someone who was … I don’t know quite the right way of putting it because the truth is that I don’t remember all that well how good he was at mathematics at this stage. But the fact that I don’t remember puts upper and lower bounds on his performance: he wasn’t one of the best in the year and he wasn’t one of the worst in the year. I think the result of that was that he did not get a PhD place in Cambridge, but it’s possible that he just didn’t want to do a PhD here, and so he disappeared out of my life — I think he did his PhD at Brown — to reappear over twenty years later as the coauthor with Christopher Hacon of some astonishing papers that completed Mori’s minimal model programme. Now I don’t know what that programme is, but I do have some conception of how important it is, and have seen how excited algebraic geometers are about these developments.
Both Hacon and McKernan were invited speakers at the ICM. I was strongly tempted to go to McKernan’s talk, but, agonizingly, it clashed with Assaf Naor’s and I went for the latter. It occurs to me that, given that I tended to bump into the people I knew about two or three times a day, I may have accidentally cut McKernan dead a few times (I stupidly didn’t remind myself what he looked like until well after I had left Hyderabad). James, if I did, and if by any chance you read this, then please know that it was the opposite of what I planned. What I would have liked to do is tell him how pleased I was at how well he has done. I don’t know whether it is right to describe him as a late developer, but the evidence I have suggests that that is a reasonable description. I hope it is, because I very much like stories of late developers: I think it is important to show the world that if you are not a Marianna Csörnyei or a Jacob Lurie, then you still have a chance of proving major theorems.
Marianna’s talk was packed, partly because the room was much too small for an invited lecture at an ICM, so I ended up standing. Given my state of tiredness and the temperature in the room, this was both a good thing (it stopped me going to sleep) and a bad thing (it was pretty tiring). Marianna spoke quietly, but loudly enough to be audible in that room, at least if there wasn’t any background noise. I’ve forgotten what she said about her own work, except that it sounded amazing in the way that it always does, but let me mention a pair of results of David Preiss that she mentioned as part of her introduction. (Added later: if you want to know about more than this, here is her ICM proceedings article.)
After Marianna’s talk I allowed myself a break (as I had in the morning when I skipped Carlos Kenig’s plenary lecture — today, as on the previous day, I was sufficiently worried about overdoing it that I missed some talks that I would ordinarily have liked to go to) of just over an hour until Jacob Lurie’s talk. I thought that there were likely to be many people besides me who would be there for entirely extra-algebro-topological reasons, so I decided to turn up ten minutes early. The room was already very full, but I tried a tactic that sometimes works — to march to the front, spot one seat right in the middle of the fourth row that nobody has quite been able to face getting to, and to face getting to it. OK you have to climb over six sets of knees, but it seems that people don’t hold permanent grudges against you for this (except perhaps if you arrive late for a film and clamber over someone, blocking their view at a crucial moment, but then you’ll probably never see them again).
As I’ve already made clear, Lurie is a certified genius. I mean “certified” in the sense of “universally acknowledged” but there was just a hint of an alternative interpretation in the way that he moved his head, which seemed somehow more loosely attached to the rest of him than most people’s heads are. We sat waiting for quite a long time, partly because I had arrived early (which I was glad of, because there were plenty of people standing for this talk as well) and partly because Richard Thomas, who was chairing the session, was trying to persuade the conference organizers to remove the partition between the room we were in and the room next door, which was empty. Unfortunately, he failed to persuade them, although in another way it wasn’t unfortunate: I think it does something good for the atmosphere of a talk if the room is packed.
What can I say about the talk itself? Well, early on he put up a slide that had the following names on it: Deligne, Drinfeld, Feigin, Hinich, Kontsevitch, Milgram, Schlessinger, Soibelmann, Stasheff. I haven’t heard of all of those, but I’ve definitely heard of some of them and was duly intimidated. And Deligne-Mumford stacks made an appearance too (you may remember those from Ngo’s work). There were also some things called Artin stacks.
By the end of the talk, Lurie had leapt into first place for interesting or amusing quotations with three. (The next day David Aldous managed two, but he had an hour.) The first one was one of those bits of folk wisdom that I mentioned earlier: having pointed out that it was difficult to define (or discuss, or do something to) something or other using equations, he said, “If you can’t use equations, then what you want to do is use words.” In other words, you wanted to be more conceptual about what you were doing (where “you” means “Jacob Lurie”).
I’ve written, “Lots of mathematical structures — abstract.” What I meant was that to someone like me, who still has the temerity to think about mathematical objects rather than sticking to sets of sets of sets of objects (all very nicely structured of course), the experience was a sort of bombardment. I don’t really understand why I should be happy that we can define a canonical sequence of graded Artin stacks or whatever it might be (whatever it was, it wasn’t that, but it sort of sounded like that). But I wasn’t there to understand — just to drink in the experience while Lurie told us, “And then one can do A, and then B, and then C,” and the algebraic structures he mentioned became more and more sophisticated (or did they? I can’t claim to be sure of this).
I think Lurie is slightly sensitive to the criticism that his work is too abstract (not that I’m making that criticism myself — I’m not really in a position to judge how abstract it is). This sensitivity led to the second of his great quotes, which came about two thirds of the way through, when he said, “I don’t want you to think all this is theory for the sake of it, or rather for the sake of itself. It’s theory for the sake of other theory.” This got a good laugh, as you might imagine. He said that he would demonstrate that by giving us an example, which to my inexperienced eyes seemed to be yet another building of algebraic structures, but I suppose to be fair to him he did say at one point (or at least I wrote), “ is the moduli stack ,” where I think had been an abstract something or other about which something in one of his abstract results had been stated.
There was one bit that intrigued me, where he talked about things called algebras (which I would completely have forgotten about had I not written anything down). If I remember correctly, an algebra is associative, and as the algebras become more and more commutative in some sense. Additive combinatorialists will see why I found this idea appealing, though I think the appeal might vanish on closer investigation (or rather the reasons for it might — I wouldn’t rule out their being replaced by different and better reasons).
The third quotable sentence came after 35 minutes or so. He said, “I expected that I would be going overtime, but I think I haven’t.” And that was the end of the talk, apart from some questions that sounded frighteningly intelligent to me. I found myself wondering about a nightmarish scenario in which my brain suddenly inhabited Lurie’s body. Would I be able to answer the questions in a way that would seem genuine to most of the audience? Each time Lurie answered one, I realized that the answer was definitely no — there were little touches of a kind that I just wouldn’t have thought of, that made it clear that some kind of communication really was going on.
A short time afterwards I found myself chatting with Richard Thomas, who clearly had a very great respect for Lurie. I asked him two questions that I can now remember. The first was, roughly speaking, whether it was true that Lurie is revolutionizing mathematics. The answer is yes, apparently. Richard told me that Lurie has a huge programme and is slowly working through it, writing hundreds and hundreds of pages. (I think I had heard this from other sources too.) The second question was whether all this theory was leading to solutions of open problems that could not be solved without it. The answer to this is also yes, apparently, though it seems that the process of using the theory for applications is in its infancy. In other words, we can expect to hear a great deal more about Lurie over the next few years. He also said that Lurie has made several claims about what he will eventually be able to do, and already has an impressive record of backing those claims up with results. It’s just that there’s a lot more work to do.

Lie Theory and Generalizations组的听了一个,
E. Lapid, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Some applications of the trace formula and the relative trace formula;
Lapid,以前在山大时就听他讲过trace formula,那时,他老师Gelbart也去了。Lapid好像信仰犹太教,吃素,而且留着一头很劲爆的头发。

Mathematical Physics组的听了三个,
K. Wendland, Augsburg University, Germany
On the geometry of singularities in quantum field theory

A. Kapustin, California Institute of Technology, USA
Topological field theory, higher categories and their applications

M. Marcolli, California Institute of Technology, USA
Noncommutative geometry and arithmetic

Kapustin 在他的lecture中也提到了Lurie的工作,higher categories原来是有物理背景的,物理学家似乎是在很自然的使用着这些高度抽象的概念。看来,懂一些物理,对自己的数学思考是绝对有帮助的。我们现在去看那些19世纪的大师们,他们几乎都懂物理,而且,代数,几何,分析(特别是PDE),拓扑,非常和谐的融合在他们的每一件工作中。难怪陈省身先生和Weil都不断强调,一定要看19世纪那些大师的文集。

M. Marcolli是A.Connes的学生,非交换几何。现在已经变得非常非常广乐,在数学版图上,几乎无孔不入,有人形容A.Connes,说他就是个卖大力丸的。M. Marcolli把Noncommutative geometry和arithmetic
挂上钩,这就有点看头了,不过,我目前暂时不懂Noncommutative geometry,仅仅只晓得她演讲中关于算术的那部分,把那些经典结果非交换化,我就晕了。

Ngo的工作真正代表了现在数学最核心的部分。这里要无可避免的谈到Langlands programme,而Langlands programme中,最重要的研究对象之一是Automorphic forms,Automorphic forms是reductive algebraic groups上一些算子的eigenforms,这些eigenforms所对应的eigenvalues蕴涵了很多算术信息,这些算术信息或者来自数论,或者来自算术几何,在Langlands最初给Weil的一封信中最早的提出了现在的所谓Langlands programme中一些最重要的猜想和哲学,Langlands的目的,是想能用一种可以操作的方法(也就是可计算)来控制这些Automorphic forms及其对应的eigenvalues,从而,也就完全掌握了所对应的一些最深刻的算术信息,他的总体哲学是,用代数群上的调和分析(也就是Harish-Chandra的那套庞大,复杂的理论)来刻画算术中最深刻的一些性质。现在,我们对数论中的很多问题的认识,还系那个当肤浅,随便给你一个丢潘图方程,你可能都会感到不知所措的,因为目前根本就没有一种统一的方法来处理这种算术方程。现在衍生出的这些大量的抽象,复杂的理论,其根本的动力,还是来自于研究这些看上去形式很简单的算术方程的解。比如,x² + ny²=p,这个方程有哪些整数解?问题看上去很简单,但是,要真正去解决它,需要一套庞大的理论,那就是class field theory,现代数论最核心的理论之一。而目前,在研究Automorphic forms时,一个最有力的工具是trace formula,而当我们要用trace formula来研究automorphic representations时,我们就必须使用fundamental lemma来保证这种使用时合理的。Ngo证明fundamental lemma,使用了一些代数几何中最深刻的工具,比如perverse sheaf,另外,他的证明的一个核心思想史,引入了新的几何思想:the Hitchin bration,the Hitchin bration最初是被用来研究一个黎曼曲面上向量丛的模空间的,怎样把这个几何的,大范围的概念改造得适应解析的trace formula,这里就必须用到scheme的一个推广概念:stack(法文是champs),具体的说,Ngo的证明中,是使用了Artin stack和Deligne-Mumford stack。可以粗略的说,Hitchin _bration 可以看成是global trace formula的一个几何化版本。有了这种看法后,思路就开阔多了,代数几何里的一些工具就可以拿来用了,比如Springer fbres,这个概念最初是被Springer用来研究weyl 群的不可约表示的分类的。而Affne Springer fbres,则是由Kazhdan 和 Lusztig引进的,他们重点研究了它的一些几何性质。而Ngo观察到,Affne Springer fbres和Hitchin fibre是相容的,并且,在证明中,他又引入了另一个概念:picard stack。Ngo最终要证明的事情就是要stabilize the anisotropic part of the traceformula,注意,这里的指的是代数几何中的Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula,这里Ngo借用了Goresky, Kottwitz 和 MacPherson.的一些思想,不过,他们三个处理的情况是一般的 equivariant cohomology of a local affine Springer fibre.,而Ngo处理的情况是关于 global Hitchin fibration,的perverse cohomology 。最终,Ngo通过建立一个几何化的关于稳定化的等式后,就可以推fundamental lemma了。Ngo的整个证明相当庞大,是一件杰作,应用了代数几何和自守形式理论里面一些最深刻的结论,是整个Langlands programme里面的一个很大的进展,不过,我们对Langlands programme里面的一些问题和猜想的了解,还远远没有达到我们所期望的程度,所以,Langlands programme,在将来仍然是数学的一股主要潮流。
Last edited by Motif on 06 Sep 2010, 11:35, edited 2 times in total.
Motif
 
帖子: 313
加入: 26 Feb 2007, 11:00

Re: 印度行纪

帖子yijun 在 05 Sep 2010, 21:49

这个人的主页: http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/
有他的文章与书下载,他的博士论文看着是有想法,不过我还无力评论。
Grothendieck style的东西,很潮啊。。。
yijun
Site Admin
 
帖子: 4448
加入: 10 Feb 2007, 02:16
地区: 北京

Re: 印度行纪

帖子Motif 在 05 Sep 2010, 23:18

印度行纪(五)
公告:大概还有两个部分:五和六。下周就要开始讨论班和开始申请了,没有时间搞这些杂事了。
Last edited by Motif on 06 Sep 2010, 11:38, edited 1 time in total.
Motif
 
帖子: 313
加入: 26 Feb 2007, 11:00

Re: 印度行纪

帖子yijun 在 06 Sep 2010, 06:16

很好很好,继续继续,哈哈,数学部分,不妨更详细些,好让我也了解下现在的状况,好久没关注了。
yijun
Site Admin
 
帖子: 4448
加入: 10 Feb 2007, 02:16
地区: 北京

Re: 印度行纪

帖子yijun 在 06 Sep 2010, 12:55

[quote="Motif"]印度行纪(五)
公告:大概还有两个部分:五和六。下周就要开始讨论班和开始申请了,没有时间搞这些杂事了。[/quote]很好!谢谢分享,哈哈!
yijun
Site Admin
 
帖子: 4448
加入: 10 Feb 2007, 02:16
地区: 北京

Re: 印度行纪

帖子Motif 在 06 Sep 2010, 17:13

印度行纪(五)


开会期间,有几天是很辛苦的,几乎整个一天都在听报告,幸好我们每天有免费的四杯咖啡喝,否则,还真有点难撑。特别是最开始一两天,瞌睡的不行,因为印度那边和我们有两个半小时的时差,每天都差不多是相当于北京时间一两点才睡。后来慢慢习惯了,情况才变得稍微好点。整个期间,除了报告,ICM还安排了几次娱乐,其中有一个是English play,主要是讲ramanujan的事迹的。不过,我只看了其他的两个,第一次是看India dance performance,第二次是听Hindustani Classical Music Concert,是一种Vocal形式的吟唱。那个舞蹈,是由一个男的领队跳的,其余,还有一二十男男女女,那个男的年纪大概四十多岁,样子有点像佛教画像里的某些大神,不过,我总感觉他像个瑜伽师,他们跳舞时那种神态和动作,真的和那些佛教壁画里所刻画的人物像极了。当时,我个人的感觉是,在舞场上,弥漫着一种狂欢的气氛,而且,到处升腾着欲望,仿佛他们不在跳舞,而是在进行着一种祭祀仪式,其间夹杂着他们神秘的信仰,通过肢体在空间的游走,来申诉隐藏在内心深处的一种被压抑的情绪,具体是何种情绪,这就由听者决定了。你们看过中国某些少数民族例有些涉及迷信的舞蹈吗?比如,跳大神,如果有这种印象,或许会对这种印度舞蹈有一些经验上的认同。而那个Hindustani Classical Music,我开始还以为是唱歌什么的,后来去听才知道,仅仅是一种吟唱,听过班得瑞的音乐的人就能准确会意我这里的吟唱的意思。如果没有听过班得瑞,那么,若你看过电视剧《天道》的话,那个剧目的片头曲——“来自天国的女儿”(一首很好听的吟唱!),就是我这里所说的Vocal形式的吟唱。如果前述两个你都没有听过,那么,死人了,请道士来为亡者做法事时,那些道士哼哼唧唧的那些道士歌,你总该听过吧,这在中国,应该算得上一个人所共有的经验吧。对,就是那种调子。当时,总共有六个人坐在台上,其中有一个主唱者,他面前放了一个小钵,我估计里面放了什么刺激性的香料什么的,因为我看到他时不时的把手往那里面刮一下,然后凑到鼻子尖抹一下,接着就看见他额头和鼻尖开始出汗了,而且,我在下面也时不时的闻到一种很浓烈的香味,这种香味与我吃curry饭的时候,嚼到某种带壳的小果子时尝到的那种香味一模一样,具有很大刺激性。其他几人都操着各式各样的乐器,那些乐器,很像中国古代那些胡人的乐器,反正不像中国现代的民族乐器,不过,奏出来的音还挺悦耳的。有时候,当那个主唱者唱累了的时候,旁边两个小伙子会代替他唱那么一小会儿。他们吟唱的都非常投入,感觉很肃穆,让我时不时的想起庙里的梵音。有时,唱着唱着,手,或者上半身还会不停地颤抖,可能是整个乐章中的高潮吧,或许,整个吟唱,都是某种献给他们梵天的颂歌。舞蹈和Hindustani Classical Music大概都持续了一个半小时,前面那个舞蹈是在20号,这个Hindustani Classical Music是在24号,这两个娱乐,我都有摄像资料在相机,可惜文件太大,上传不了。20号观看了那个舞蹈后,还吃了所谓的conference dinner。这个dinner只能用“劲爆”两个字形容。印度举办方在一个比较远的似乎是一个公园里,租了个场子,临时搭了个巨大的棚,可容纳几千人的那种,然后,众人一窝蜂的往那个棚里钻去吃自助。前面说了,与会的人有一半是印度人,一半是外国人,那些印度哥们根本不排队,见缝插针,等好多阿三都快要吃完了,还有一大票外国人盘子里没有捞到食物,极为郁闷的在那里排着队,撑着文明的架子。不过,到后来,可能是实在饿得不行了,那些绅士淑女派头也慢慢放下了,队伍慢慢的开始涣散,而且很多人开始四处打游击,当时就感慨,马克思真他娘的伟大,经济和物质基础,绝对的决定上层建筑。我看到那些高鼻深目们也不排队了,心想,就让我坚守这文明的最后阵地吧,又继续排了大概半个小时,但我往前头一看,妈的,队伍还在原地踏步踏,根本没动,而且似乎还有后退的趋势,心想,要是再这样死磕下去,我可能要担架抬着出去了,于是,一手拿刀叉,一手端盆子,转移战场了,在四处游击的过程中,看到有些服务生用盆子端着食物,似乎是刚从厨房拿出来上到众人自助的地方的,于是,不管三七二十一,把他截下来捞点在盆子里再说,那送食物的服务生当然很不乐意了,妈的,居然在中途被人打了一劫,当然不爽,但没有办法,我和他死缠,我说我快要饿晕了,排队又排不上,还说,我胃有毛病,再不吃点东西压肚,可能就要犯胃病了,那服务生听我如此一说,态度好转,并对我报以同情的一笑,让我自己挑选他手中盆子里的食物。当时确实是太饿了,感觉那些印度食物真的是美味,什么Button,chicken,花生米,通通一勺扫。话说饥饿是最好的调味剂,这一点也没错,主食吃得差不多了,然后,去打了一勺冰激凌,最后,还喝了一小杯红酒,酒足饭饱后,掏出相机记录了一下那混乱的千人大dinner。放眼望去,到处是人头攒动,而且,渐渐地,里面的人体味越来越浓,几台大风扇在那里作死的搅动,也不过是杯水车薪罢了。于是,只好叫上同伴,打道回府了,同伴似乎很郁闷的样子,临走时还携了一桶冰激凌。那个冰激凌太甜了,不然,我也准备捞一杯走。他说,他还没吃饱,晚上根本没吃到什么菜,光吃了点饭,不过,也不想再继续吃下去了。印度的米饭很有个性,好长一粒粒的,不过,吃到嘴里没什么口感,形同嚼蜡。开会期间,中餐是在会场里吃的,因为ICM给每个人发了餐券,也就是中餐券和四张咖啡券,每顿中餐的消费,那券上写的是200rupees,我几乎每天都吃那个chicken biryani或者Button biryani,只有两天连续吃了蛋炒饭。早餐和晚餐都是在我前面提到的,infosys里面的离我们的guest house不远的那个餐厅的二楼吃的,都是自助。对比起我们后来自己在外面吃饭的情况,现在想起来,我们的自助早晚餐真的是相当不错了。那里面,我最喜欢吃三种食物:chicken / button biryani (rice with lamb or chicken),porridge with milk,jibeli(a kind of sweet ),那个jibeli是一个印度女人推荐我吃的,一种甜食,我也不知道是什么做的,反正是一种油炸物,不过,因为它成管状,所以,里面有一种甜甜的液体,很好吃。每天的菜样差不多没怎么变化,不过,早餐和晚餐往往有些不同。米饭有加了curry的有色饭盒没有加curry的白米饭,还有蛋炒饭,蛋和火腿炒面,都还不错。其他的,就全部是印度菜了,都有curry,他们的菜都是黏黏糊糊的呈浆状。不过,他们做的西红柿很好吃,是油炸西红柿,很有个性。除这些主食外,还配有咖啡,果汁,糕点,水果,印度汤,牛奶。那边的牛奶浓度非常高,而且很便宜,基本上可以拿牛奶当水喝。基本上,我们吃的都是非常正宗的印度食物,后来,我们在外面吃饭,一般的小店还吃不到我们在自助上吃的食物,因为有些食物那些店子做不出,只有一些比较高级的饭店才能做出那些我们在自助上所吃到的东西。另外,在印度,服务生往往是男的,不管是负责打扫我们房间的服务生,还是我们吃自助的餐厅里面的服务生,又或者是大街上那些饭店或者酒店里的服务生,全都是些印度小伙,都比较年轻,几乎看不到女服务员。后来,我们在订酒店时,去了一家四星级酒店,才看到那个酒店里有两个前台的女服务员,后来,慢慢了解到,只有在一些很高级的场所里,你才看得见女服务生。我也不知道这是什么原因,只是看到了这种现象而已,不知有谁能解释一下。这种现象似乎与中国的服务行业的情况恰好相反。
Motif
 
帖子: 313
加入: 26 Feb 2007, 11:00

Re: 印度行纪

帖子Motif 在 06 Sep 2010, 17:19

晚上上完德语课,若有时间,我会把最后行纪最后一章写完。
Motif
 
帖子: 313
加入: 26 Feb 2007, 11:00

Re: 印度行纪

帖子yijun 在 06 Sep 2010, 17:26

这次中国一共去了大概多少人?其中老师和学生分别大概是多少?中国出席的团队相比其他国家,大概是一个什么状况?当然,你已经说了,印度人最多了,一半都是,是否其中主要都是学生?
yijun
Site Admin
 
帖子: 4448
加入: 10 Feb 2007, 02:16
地区: 北京

Re: 印度行纪

帖子文静 在 06 Sep 2010, 17:42

呵呵,Motif写得很有意思 :D
文静
 
帖子: 322
加入: 04 Mar 2007, 12:16
地区: 上海

Re: 印度行纪

帖子yijun 在 06 Sep 2010, 18:07

[quote="文静"]呵呵,Motif写得很有意思 :D[/quote]
如果经常敲一敲回车键,就更完美了:)
yijun
Site Admin
 
帖子: 4448
加入: 10 Feb 2007, 02:16
地区: 北京

以前下一篇

回到 日常时光


谁在线

本版乘客: 没注册乘客 和 0 路人

cron