Why did Bourbaki fail?

It didn't fail. Their book series exists.

>>8530434
But there overall project failed

>>8530438
What was their overall project besides the book series

File: dont save this or else.png (1MB, 800x933px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x933px

>>8530438
he's still writing, algebraic topology just came out this year

>>8530449
to reduce all of mathematics into logic

>>8530488
The goal was to reduce everything to axioms of set theory, not to reduce it to "logic" which is an impossible task

As everyone is saying it didn't fail. It's still going on right now and they've had a huge impact towards the development and formalization of math for the past century.

>>8530614
Exactly this

Wasn't their main goal to slowly replace abstraction with rigorous formalism?

>>8530690
doesn't that go completely different from Grothendieck though who was all about abstraction

The volumes on Lie groups and Lie algebras + commutative alg Are actually some of the best sources on those subjects you can get.

>>8530690
Hell no

Everything Bourbaki did was done in the most general sense possible from the very beginning
the books are extremely abstract

>>8530762
So my point being that at least some bomb ass math books came out of it, so you can't really consider it a failure