/sci/ - Science & Math

Can you explain the theory in three sentences?

>>15658001
I like to shit on individual mathematicians on this board but I don't actually know mathematics. What's all this about writing proofs now? If you give me a qrd, I can tell you if he's a retard or not, but nothing more.

>>15658006
Bro, If I could understand the theory I could explain it. But if I could understand it I would try my hand at winning the million dollars, instead of wasting my time talking about it.

>>15658001
His proof is flawed because he assumes that real numbers exist. Where can I go collect the million?

>>15658014
>His proof is flawed because he assumes that real numbers exist.

>>15658010
In math all propositions need to be proved unless they're axioms.

>>15658001
Debugging stuff requires higher IQ than writing that stuff in the first place. Good luck retards!

>>15658093
>Debugging stuff requires higher IQ than writing that stuff in the first place.
We don't even know if there's a mistake in the first place. You just need to find one (1) mistake, you don't even have to fix it.

>>15658001
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13573

>scientificamerican

>>15658341
How can you find a "mistake" in an idiosyncratic, autoreferential, circular logic? Either the old logic that led to abc intersects with the new logic or it doesn't.

didn't scholze already debunk this

>>15658001
>you have to prove my uberschizo shit is not true
absolutely grim timeline

>>15658001
This might be silly. If there's really valid arguments against it, then its easy money for anybody in the know.

>>15658409
Well mochi debonked scholze's debonking with proof by nuh-uh

>>15658404
Dismissive attitude. You could be a millionaire in an hour. Take your shot chump.

>>15658014

>>15658502
he disproved scholze by using insults. only worked for 4chan tho.

>>15658513
It's on him to make the logic of his infinity hat theatre touch another logic.

>>15658561
So you surrender, unable to either read his work nor refute it. And you call yourself a scientist.

>>15658564
Your mother is a scientist.

>>15658367
>Hey guys, stop lying otherwise you'll get Black people killed
Does she think they care lol? Lynn would trample the corpses of a hundred black children before he gave a single fuck. Only thing that would ever even get him off the corpses is a concern for his shoes being ruined by black children's blood.

They want them to be killed, not to save them from being killed. What you tell them not to do, they will do even more if it means more blacks getting killed. This is incredibly naiive of the journalist.

>>15658409
>Mochizuki soends 20 years inventing new branches of math to prove the theorem
>Scholze goes on a 1 week seminars in order to understands it and somehow knows whether it's wrong or not
>Retards: Yeah Scholze is an accomplished mathematician so he must be right

Who's gonna review the paper? That means two persons are at least needed

>>15658001
Mochizuki is a hack

>>15658852
Appeal to hard work is also a fallacy

>>15658871
Fuck off, Scholze. I'm not claiming this makes Mochizuki automatically right. Just that Scholze expected to instantly understand a tough proof that took a long time to make and instantly know where the problem might be. Once Mochizuki rejected his meagre effort he quit.

>>15658872
>>15658873

>>15658875
>I'm not claiming Mochizuki is right but I must shit on doubters because reasons

>>15658900
Because 99.99% of people don't understand the proof nor can they even try to. They just fell inline with Scholze because he's the only one that offered anything. Yes, he's an accomplished mathematician but that doesn't also make him automatically right, yet people accept his "refutation" as a fact.

>>15658001
>Spend 10 years combing through his paper
>Find a flaw that breaks it
>Go to collect my money
>Shinichi is too schizo to accept that the flaw exists
>Doesn't give me my money
How do you respond without sounding mad?

>>15658919
>>Shinichi is too schizo to accept that the flaw exists
Nothing I've read of him would make me think he would reject your flaw if you truly showed tou understood his work.

>>15658555
>you disproveness doesnt matter because you used bad words banned by soience bible

>>15658367
all facts, not a single wrong take.

>>15658919
is't not him that's offering the money though.

>>15659011
It says that in the OP, but looking at the website you're actually right, Nobuo Kawakami is judging it

>>15658001
This and LK99 and covid are just proofs east asians are genetic narcissists and cannot be trusted to put truth above "face"

>>15658852
>>Retards: Yeah Scholze is an accomplished mathematician so he must be right
Calling people retarded for telling the truth? Last I checked scholze won a Field's medal in 2018

>>15659507
Perelman was correct to point out that Fields is a fag prize for faggots.
What matters is to get a proof right and to be remembered for the proof, not to be fellated by some Swedes or Norwegians onstage.

>>15658001
>be nutjob
>write giant wall of schizobabble that no one can understand and assert you've solved some famous problem
>offer big cash prize for anyone who can prove you wrong
>when someone tries to claim it refuse and respond with more schizobabble then attack them for not praising your immense genius

This is literally the standard crank playbook. Underwood Dudley wrote several books about them in the 70s.
http://library.lol/main/7BC738BB2B5E9C291AE262CB638EC845

>>15659507
>Calling people retarded for telling the truth?
No, pointing out the appeal to authority. They're both accomplished mathematicians and if Scholze claims something it's no by default right.

>>15659537
>What matters is to get a proof right and to be remembered for the proof, not to be fellated by some Swedes or Norwegians onstage.

Hello,
I am very shy and want to explain some math here to you men. Please bear with me. The fact is anything is in an unknown state unless we tray and do something with or to it, so when we perform a calculation we must always perform the calculation with each variable positively and negatively signed in every combination. This is in fact why in our universe the equations for gravity and electo magnetism can seem so similar as the effect of squaring, This is also how the universe is actually nothing or summates to nothing. If you examine what I am saying here you will see. Thank you.

>>15661952
So
X^2=4 (X =-2/X=+2)
Ω =+/-
Ω X^2=4
So for example
y = a( x – h) 2 + k
becomes
Ωy = Ωa( Ωx – Ωh) ^2 + Ωk
5! = 5x4x3x2x1 = 120
Or
00001
00011
00111
01111
11111
10000
11000
11100
11110
etc
So for example
Ωy = Ωa( Ωx – Ωh) ^2 + Ωk
-y=-a(-x- (-h))^2 +-k
-y=-a(-x- (-h))^2 +(+k)
-y=-a(-x- (+h))^2 +(+k)
-y=-a(+x- (+h))^2 +(+k)
-y=+a(+x- (+h))^2 +(+k)
+y=+a(+x- (+h))^2 +(+k)
etc
This gives you what the parabola actually looks like, much more like a self negating funnel in fact!

>>15661952
>>15661991

>>15658001
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Any anon from Kyoto here? What's the chance of meeting him in the street? Do people take pics of him like russian anons do in St Petersburg for Perelman?

>>15662681
I thought Perelman lived in Sweden now?

>>15658001
Honestly bros why did he do it? It's like he wants his reputation and legacy to crash and burn.

>>15662830
Source? Sounds suspicious, he didn't want money why would he move to a richer country

>>15658001
The problem is that his proof uses a ton of "nonstandard" language which makes it extremely time consuming for a mathematician to examine it. It's like he doesnt actually want other people to read the proof when he did shit like that.

Nobodys going to waste months/years interpreting Mochizuki's tard language when he should have done it correctly in the first place.

>>15662850
IIRC his mother got ill and they couldn't cover their expenses, so they moved to live with his sister who works in Sweden, something along those lines.

Sounds like nobody's disproved it because nobody knows what the fuck it is or what the point of it is?

>>15663079
Scholze & Stix raised some concrete concerns with the proof and Mochizuki gave a bunch of schizo nonreplies.

>>15663079
>>15663121
Scholze found a flaw in the proof which he believes cannot be fixed, rendering the whole thing moot. People trust scholze, but the reason why more people haven't echoed Scholze is the fact that the proof's language is so impenetrable.

>>15663150
It can be helpful to use new language if it abbreviates or consolidates an existing language and if the new language can be unfolded back into the old language with no gaps in logic or meaning. The proof doesn't explain how to properly connect its new language to any old language, which makes it trivial and useless, even if the intuition behind the proof might be absolutely valid.

>>15663419
nice insight/post. Reading Scholze's posts, the proof does not explain how some "objects" come out to be and Mochizuki basically replies "it's obvious".

I don't think Scholze will bother with this prize.

>>15658852
>Person A spends years proving something difficult
>Wider community evaluates it in a few weeks or months
That has literally happened for every single breakthrough in history. A flaw was discovered in Wiles' first FLT proof within a few days, and then he spent 2 years fixing it. It takes way longer to invent something than to evaluate it. You are not a smart person.

You'll find more intelligent discussions on /sp/

>>15663584

>>15663150
Scholze has already won the fields though, so he's not in a rush anymore. Why not devote more time to this? Even just giving a definitive answer would be valuable (and now also profitable)

Joshi has been working on salvaging IUT and it would be exciting if he found some concrete machinery that can be used to prove some intermediate weaker result.

>>15663712
It is excessively polite to say that the language describing the proof of the prize is even less connected to reality than the language describing the proof of the abc conjecture.

><How the IUT Challenger Prize will be judged>
>The judging will be conducted by Nobuo Kawakami on his own initiative.
>The method of judging will not be made public. [...]

>>15663525
Mochizuki basically said he reinvented math from the ground up and you how to relearn Mochizuki math to understand the proof

>>15663745
He could be the translator that we need. Prize or no prize, he would open it up to other mathematicians

>>15663712
Because why would he do that? It would take years to teach Mochizuki's tard language to enough people to a sufficient enough level so that there can actually be a full consensus on whether the actual proof is right or wrong. Scholze said there was a flaw, he dedicated some (wasted) time to it, that should be enough. That was a definitive answer, he can be trusted.

>>15658923
kys

>>15664752
If you say that to me or anyone else on this site one more time I will FUCKING end you, you god-damned retarded spastic bitch ass motherfucker cockface

>>15664532
he just doesn't get interuniversal tektonik geometry, he's a brainlet

>>15658001
Mochizuki's proof of the abc conjecture:

Theorem: I’m right and you’re wrong.
Proof:
>6000 pages of buzzwords

Corollary: kys fucktard
Proof:
Exercise

It's not easy to find a flaw here.

>>15664286
After you learn Mochizuki math does that mean you can't understand normal math anymore? My concern is that there's only room for one math at a time.