/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5775605
>It is 500 pages of the most complex mathematics ever created in the history of man, and only its creator understands it.

>I have looked at Shinichi Mochizuki's papers, and they are completely, utterly indecipherable to me.

judging by what you claim, everyone takes on good faith his work is accurate since he's too incompetent to communicate his methods to other mathematicians

>>5775605
A big part of making a mathematical proof is making it so that other people can understand your work. So the fact that it's difficult to understand even for professionals knocks some points off of it.

Though I am stoked to see just what happens of it. Other scientific fields and society in general takes awhile to absorb densely packed mathematical thought.

Why is this guy posted here every week with the same content?

>>5775620
here it fucking goes again! ITT: underageb& talk shit about what may turn out to be the most incredible proof authored by a human because it doesn't look like calculus. omfg I'm out!

>>5775634

From what I've read, correct me if I'm wrong, it's only difficult because he developed a genuinely new theory out of material researched only by few mathematicians. There are few mathematicians that are familiar with some parts of these materials, and even fewer that would be familiar with majority of them. It's likely that only Mochizuki knows them all. So it will take time before his papers can be checked independently.

I think he could write some bad-ass soap operas, because he left so many people on such a good cliffhanger...
God dammit, I can't wait for someone to workout what he has done.

he worked mostly alone for 20 years so it will take a while to penetrate 20 years worth of mathematical proofs starting from square one.

not to doubt his brilliance or the value of his contributions, but lack of collaboration with other mathematicians means nobody really has any insight into his methods.

What's his position on the fact that nobody understands his works? Has he spoke with someone yet? Like, a meeting to explain some passages or stuff like that. Is he aware of this?

>>5775705

He refuses to comment or give lectures on this recent work. He didn't even publish it the normal way. He just put it online and let others deal with it.

I don't think he really cares if people understand it or not.

>>5775714
Maybe he's not 100% sure of his proof? If I wasn't sure, I'd keep a low profile as well. It'd be so extremely embarassing to have someone refute it.

>>5775775
maybe but he's built up a great deal of credibility even if his work is ultimately refuted; I don't think it will necessarily be a thing to be ashamed of.

>>5775714
Standard peer reviewing is open to bias and misunderstanding and takes time, especially with something new and complex

>>5775714
I thought that style of open peer review was common in physics and math? Isn't that basically what arxiv is for?

>>5775605
>perhaps one of the most important proofs in all of mathematics
Calling shenanigans on this one.

>>5775890
That's what they said about Fermat's Last Theorem..

I wonder how mathematicians like this (Wiles, Perelman, Mochizuki etc.) compare to the classic greats like Gauss, Euler, Poincare, Hilbert, Riemann etc.
Whether they will be remembered as well at them, or whether history is kinder to mathematicians who make more seminal, thought perhaps simpler, contributions.

>>5775944

probably a good thing

makes sure that everything checks out before being accepted

>>5776002
>remembered as well at them

i'm a little saddened that this is not much of a feat

>>5776018
Are you kidding? There's not a single person in the maths community who hasn't heard about GEPHR etc. It would be amazing if one would be remembered as well as them.

it's a coin toss (50/50) whether the math can work or not (of course there's going to be lots of minor mistakes that need fixing and discussion, but even after fixing all those it's not clear if the entire program works out)

there's literally no way to decide without studying it and it's extremely extremely difficult and long..

just think about whether you could be bothered putting literally decades of your life into CHECKING it..

no one is seriously going to be working through in its entirety.. people in this very specific field might try to pick up ideas from it as the years pass

>wrote a 500 page article proving something
Nobody's gonna read that shit ever. It is just badly written. Maybe he proved it maybe he didn't. He himself doesn't even know.

>>5776063
GEPHR?
Also - there's a math community?

>>5776122
>GEPHR?
GEPHR refers to the list of mathematicians in the post which >>5776018 was quoting.

>Also - there's a math community?
Yes. Did you ask this question just so that you could subtly point out that you prefer "math" over "math"?

>>5776167
Obviously that second "math" was supposed to be "math".

>>5775775
But that's not how it should work.
With Wiles was like this: he had doubts, he asked everyone if they could help, they found errors, but then it was fixed.

Even if he's wrong he may have discovered something incredible.
Don't be selfish.

>>5775605
>http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
"A proof is a social construct."

Post-Modernism, here we come!

I fail to see the importance of this. It seems to me to be analogous to philosophical masturbation about the "nature of beauty" or some stupid shit.

>>5775605
> the most complex mathematics ever created in the history of man, and only its creator understands it. Mathematicians are at a loss trying to understand the proof, which pulls together vast numbers of strands of disparate math.
That honestly sounds like 50% of research level mathematics, and 99% of research level math using algebraic geometry.

>>5775714

Put it this way:

>wasting time trying to teach chimps to understand basic mathematics when you could be doing more advanced shit

>>5775605
>Series of four papers at the bottom: http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/papers-english.html

His papers may be from the future but his website sure fucking isn't.

So can someone explain to me why this is exciting?

>>5776395
if youre not excited about it youre not. look up ABC conjecture if you're curious what it's about.

>>5776395
They're excited because they have no idea what it means. This is what passes for controversy in the exciting world of mathematics.

>>5776412
>>5776395

Did either of you read

http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/

in the damn OP? It explains why it is important, and it wasn't too bad of a read.

Also...holy shit! This mother fucker went to Phillips Exeter? Damn, I used to play them in soccer and lacrosse way back in high school.

Anyway, for me, I am hesitant to believe his results. This sounds like when that one russian dude posted string theory stuff on arxiv or w/e then disappeared, it was supposed to solve the universe or whatever. Then no one could understand it and I haven't heard of him since. The fact that in mathmatics you have even less to go on (you can basically invent whatever world you want), coupled with the fact he shows no intention of explaining his results or lecturing about it makes me doubt this is an actual proof. He does sound like a weird guy so maybe on that I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but the fact even his former colleagues have commented that the new papers are indecipherable (they previously applauded his older work) makes me skeptical.

>>5776454
Yes I read it and I've glanced at the papers over the last 3 weeks.

That doesn't mean we really know the extent of what it could or could not mean. It's still a wonderful box of maybe.

>>5776477
Those dubs

His reports are so clear, I wanna know how he typeset it.
>inb4 LaTeX

>>5776283
Ha! AG doesn't fuck around and this sucker just starts with sick levels of arkelov AG

holy shit op take the guys cock out of your ass u phaggot

If I wasn't sure I wouldn't have said anything.

I kinda have to ask, his most important papers are almost impenetrable because they are the result of years of deep work. Therefore, you need to start reading, not his most recent papers, but his previous works. Are people actually trying to do this? Because people are actually giving him the benefit of the doubt since he has produced some high quality work before, I can't believe people are writing off his work just because they're too lazy to star at the beginning.

>One of the most important proofs in the world of mathematics is discovered
>By an autistic Asian with a micropenis
>Doesn't even want to explain the steps he took

Welp, at least it's something.

Dude has a god tier photo, that's for sure.

>>5776621
Sounds like you already know, so why are you asking?

>>5777150
Have to agree with this guy
I could write some shit in windings, post it online titled "Proof of ABC conjecture", and have made something more useful then this his garbage papers. He could have discovered the secrets of the universe, but if there's no way he can tell anybody then who cares.

>mathematicians look down on everyone for not being rigorous
>suddenly someone is too rigorous and needs to babby it down for the rest of you

top lel

>>5777150

>Guy create one of the most interesting and difficult to comprehend mathematical proofs.
>/sci/ takes comfort in pointing out his tiny penis and autism.

No /sci/, you are the jocks.

I read that Grigori Perelman, the man who solved the poincare conjecture, acted similarly.
It's probably REALLY stressful helping the math community pick apart a proof you spent YEARS on- it would be like watching your child work as a crash dummy.
It's easy to understand why this guy would want to watch from a distance.

I thought this was the Japanese cannibal who murdered and ate a girl and through a loophole is still allowed to live freely in Japan. Looks a lot like him.

>>5776223
speaking of which, couldn't this just be a sokalesque prank targeted at the other side

>>5777239
That's untrue. As soon as he published his proof, Perelman gave several lectures on it and was willing to discuss it with several mathematicians in conferences. He simply asked that there be no spectacle, i.e., no cameras and showboating bullshit. He gave lectures/conferences to a variety of individuals, to audiences packed with mathematicians, et cetera.

It was only after when morals surrounding the prize came into play that he formally quit mathematics research.
>>5777247
Dude, that guy is like 90 lbs, is like 4'10'' and old as shit. He's also damn near bald, ugly as sin and ridiculously depraved looking. You can't even compare the two, wtf.

>>5777265
auditoriums packed with mathematicians***, excuse me. Time to sleep!

There is a typo on the first page of the first of the four papers. I'm just saying.

>>5777525
Yeap, paper i pretty much destroyed at this point.

>>5777525

jesus fuck, it's like he makes up words as he goes along

i would love to be able to understand that, it is daunting to think of how much there is to mathematics i will never be able to comprehend

>>5777536
I have read much of the first paper now. On the purely superficial level there are aspects that are not encouraging. The use of italics is excessive, random and unorthodox. He uses exclamation points too often. He emphasizes paragraph-length statements by displaying them as if they were quoted from other sources. These are quibbles, like the typo on page 1, but they give one no confidence that studying the papers carefully for years is a good use of one's time.

I have a math PhD in a different field.

Has Jacob Barnett disproved this?

>>5777591
that little cunt
if he's so smart why hasn't he figured out how to use his autism as an alternate fuel source
top #lel

Here's another example of why probably no one wants to expend the effort on these papers.

From page 6 on the second of four papers, a missing dx.

>>5777605
You're so cute.

>>5777585
Autistics Japs are different

>>5777605
It's almost as if that's what happens when one person writes about 600 pages.

>>5777607

>>5777631
Indeed, nitpicking such minimal errors? It's almost as if he is clearly just joking around.

>>5777631
It would have been prudent to ask an undergraduate math major to proofread such an important opus; or even a technical editor with no math knowledge. The whole thing seems sloppy in the easy parts. Why would anyone struggle through the hard parts?

>>5777670
Email all of these to him, I'm sure he will appreciate the input.

>>5777670
>>5777648

he just rambles on and on, when does he ever get to the point?

i think he's a massive troll and this whole thing is the voynich manuscript of the 21st century in ledgible glyphs.

>>5777675
Just send him a link to this thread.

>>5777681
I know, right?

>>5775714
If he sent this to a journal, it ould take the referree over 10 years to get back to the editor.

>>5777691

>implying referees actually read papers

Another indication that the work hasn't even been proofread.

By the way, the phrase "functorial group-theoretic algorithm" appears 34 times in the second paper, usually with quotes around it, often italicized, never with any apparent reason or pattern.

He fucking does it AGAIN!

>>5777704
the multiradiality of the cyclotomic rigidity isomorphism of Corollary

I lel'd.

>>5777726
keep them comming

>>5777731
wrut the fuck is he saying... please attempt translation :/

>>5777726
It's completely acceptable to leave out the dx there. Are you 12?

>>5777738
this must be what it feels like when taking calc 1 while being a "normal" person and sucking at math

>>5777740
No, you're 12.

>>5777740
-sqrt(pi)/10

>>5777740
That's what my Math 120 students claimed. (Not the good ones.)

>>5777525
>hits 's' instead of 'n'
Confirmed for dvorak user.

The reason it's not proofread is because it's a rambling pile of shit. He should learn how to properly comjoonikate his ideas is he ever wants to be taken seriously.

>>5777759

what is so special about that

>>5777772
>I can't read a proof it must be bad

>>5777779
>implying his 500 page paper isn't a trainwreck
Nigger detected.

>>5777772
Agreed. One thing you notice is far too many expressions in quotes, as if to say what is being quoted should not be taken literally. You can't do that in an important math paper you want taken seriously.

>>5777779
proofs are a social construct. a proof isnt something that automatically proves something is correct just by existing, its a way to convince other people that its correct. If its generally excepted to be correct by multiple people, then the things is proved. This fails at what a proof is supposed to be.

>>5777749
Oh shit.

>>5777749
>Implying mathematical notation cannot be omitted when the meaning is completely obvious to everyone and their mother

>>5777798
11 = 2
Its completely obvious that I meant addition, so I omitted it.

These are such well-known danger signs that they have become a humorous cliche among working mathematicians.

>>5777792
> proofs are a social construct

that's correct according to a woman http://mathbabe.org/2012/11/14/the-abc-conjecture-has-not-been-proved/

>>5777807
>The issue here is that nobody understands what he’s talking about, even people who really care and are trying, and his write-ups don’t help.
As quick as I am to grimace at that blog name, I don't disagree with her.

>>5775605
Nothing against the proof; I (and probably nobody else) am not even remotely close to say if it's good or not.

However, this man as a whole is a fucking dumbass.

>dump hundreds of pages of indecipherable math that may as well be gibberish to literally everyone elso on earth on the internet
>refuse to explain any of it to anybody
>refuse to break it up into smaller, more easily understandable pieces
>refuse to communicate with anybody about it

Even if he is correct nobody wants to bother with him because that kind of behaviour reeks of crackpot.

http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Panoramic%20Overview%20of%20Inter-universal%20Teichmuller%20Theory.pdf

Here is a summary from his site.

That's what I call the *ultimate fate* of that "abstract nonsense" which modern mathematics **turned** into

Is OP exaggerating, or is it true that literally nobody else can understand his paper?

>>5777857
Sure, I bet Jake understands it perfectly.

>>5777857
I think those who have looked at it have concluded that it's not worth spending their effort on because it's not well-written and the author is unwilling to help explain.

Could it be that he actually understands that he did some serious mistakes or the whole construction is essentially wrong so that's why he refuses to explain ?

>>5777525
That reads as if he intentionally used "is".

>>5777889

Does he understand how to not be a little austismal faggot?

>>5777889
He doesn't even understand calculus.

This, from the third page of the fourth paper, inspires little confidence.

>>5777945
didn't he define them as radical objects? why does he do this? probably to fill up pages.

>>5777924
I'm sure he meant "in". "in a fashion that is not compatible" is more likely than "is a fashion that is not compatible".

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

>>5777945
But you know what? I feel that I really agree with him at least at this point. Seriously a category is too general and vague. I don't know what he's trying to introduce by "types of mathematical objects" but putting some certain details to categories does not sound meaningless

>>5777961
what?

>>5777961
you are fucking retarded. no one ITT has said anything relating to those 2 fallacies.

>>5777966
I think I agree. I'm just pointing out trivial stylistic issues that make one not want to read the papers carefully because they undermine confidence in the author.

"Dimitrov stressed that it’s too early to predict whether Mochizuki’s proof will stand up to the intense scrutiny coming its way. In October he and a collaborator, Akshay Venkatesh at Stanford University, sent a letter to Mochizuki about an error they found in the third and fourth papers of the proof. In response, Mochizuki posted a reply to his website acknowledging the error but explaining that it was minor and didn’t affect his conclusions. He is expected to post a corrected version of his proof by January." Apparently other people have tried to read it, and I suppose we have the corrected version now.

>>5777807
What are the alternatives to epsilon delta?

>>5777992
Preimages of open sets are open for continuous functions.

>>5777999
This. But it's a generalisation of epsilon-delta in fact

>>5777975
What's the use of name-calling?

It seems like there are some people in this thread that think the papers are worthless because they're only comprehensible to the author. Not to mention the people spouting "autistic Asian with a micro-penis."
It was just a reminder that superficial errors and the presentation of the work doesn't relate to whether or not it is substantial. Because it seems some are dismissing the whole thing for these reasons.
Maybe the information in the links weren't exactly about what I meant, but it is the same sort of idea that I was shooting for.

>>5778008
Indeed. By the way I fail to see how this definition is more intuitive.

>>5777924
herein lies the problem
>as if he intentionally used the incorrect proof

>>5778012
They are not saying its wrong becasue he is an autistic Asian with a micro-penis, they are just insulting him becasue he sucks at writing proofs.

They are not saying the ABC conjecture is false, or the math he used is wrong becasue no one t understands it, they say its not a proof because no one understands it.

and the errors dont mean he is wrong, it just means its a bitch to read.

>>5778012
more importantly, why do you keep bumping this thread?
you're no better, virtually nothing of scientific or mathematical significance has been contributed since OP's post, and it's been here for ~22h now.

This is how proofs will look like when machines will do this instead of us and we'll believe them as we believe them when they solve differential equations for us.
We will only have to drink coffee sitting in a chair

>>5777764
you teach at chico state, don't you?

>>5778022
>nothing of scientific or mathematical significance
error correcting and spell checking may be under-appreciated, but its still important.

From page 23 of the fourth paper:

Another danger sign. It is disconcerting that complicated abstract nonsense sections of the proof are blown off as trivial exercises for the reader, while these four trivialities are given special names E1, E2, E4 and E6. Someone purportedly proving a long-outstanding problem in number theory should not belabor such trifles.

I have refereed many math papers and I would certainly reject these pro forma.

>>5778020
>They are not saying its wrong becasue he is an autistic Asian with a micro-penis, they are just insulting him becasue he sucks at writing proofs.
Okay. But it's not necessary.

>They are not saying the ABC conjecture is false,
I didn't think anyone was saying that.

>or the math he used is wrong becasue no one t understands it, they say its not a proof because no one understands it.
I think I made the mistake of assuming that whether or not it is proof, is the same as whether or not it is correct. My bad.

>and the errors dont mean he is wrong, it just means its a bitch to read.
Well, there just seemed to be an emphasis on the type errors here rather than the content.

I've been interested in these papers since hearing about them, and I was hoping that there would be more thoughtful insights in this thread.

I was wondering too, by the way; are there (or if not how come) any attempts at gathering a team of people to work together on understanding the papers? With the popularity of the papers right now, I'd think that there would be some interest in that sort of thing. I would if I was at a higher level of math.

>>5778028
No.

>>5778022
>why do you keep bumping this thread?

>>5778069
>I've been interested in these papers since hearing about them, and I was hoping that there would be more thoughtful insights in this thread.

And I wasn't intentionally bumping the thread. I was just responding and wasn't thinking of that.

>>5778063
Dude, there's something in the paper that a normal mathematician can understand and you complain about it.

>>5778069
>I was hoping that there would be more thoughtful insights in this thread.
PHds cant understant it, you think sci can?

>>5778083
toplel

>>5778083
I just wish he were as careful about the hard parts as he is about the easy parts.

>>5778094
I don't know. It figured it was worth a shot. I don't come to this board much, and didn't know what to expect. (It's irrelevant but I typically view /mu/)

>>5777265
....all asians look alike? I don't know

>>5775605
Is this a lot harder than group theory??

Has anyone managed to talk to him?

>>5778115
How does he expect people to understand his work then?

>>5777740
Then how do you know that it's a derivative?

>>5778112
He has rebuffed all invitations to lecture audiences of mathematicians and answer questions.

>>5777945
Maybe he's just a really excited guy and yells a lot. Just look at his photo

I read the whole thing and it's rather trivial babby math. Any high schooler could of done this.

>>5777857
There are probably only a handful of people in the world who have the prerequisite knowledge to read his work.

>>5778099
and you are interested in this paper even though its in the news all the time? isnt it to mainstream?

>>5778118
Good question.

>>5778017
It's not, but it is more aesthetically pleasing.

>>5778133
I'm not sure of what you're asking me. I only heard about this story the other day. I guess I'm just late. As I said, I hardly ever browse this board. I don't know if it's popular in the mainstream or not.

>>5778063
You can't be serious. Do you expect him to derive undergraduate level facts?

why is he so handsome?

>>5778152
wat

>>5778152
I think you fail to understand what this math PhD dude meant

>>5778152
>Reading Comprehension

>>5775605
0/10

>>5777749
>>5777749
i took calc 1 two semesters ago 4 years out from the last math class i took in high school
forgotten or never learned pretty much everything in algebra
and i'd never even seen trigonometric functions
>somebody at registration made a mistake and allowed me to enroll
wasn't that bad
this gook is on some next level ambiguity
did he google translate this shit from gook?
>btw i got a B and barely studied

>>5776454
>that one russian dude posted string theory stuff on arxiv or w/e then disappeared, it was supposed to solve the universe or whatever.
Very interested in this, any more info?

>>5778229
>solve the universe

>>5778115
>http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/news-english.html
2013-05-02
・(Travel and Lectures) Posted the lecture notes for a lecture to be
given at the University of Tokyo on June 13, 2013. These lecture
notes are based on the survey
A Panoramic Overview of Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory.
that I released a few months ago.

Only because all people over the internet say that he refuses to lecture doesn't mean you have to believe it, he seems to do so now.

>>5778229
>>>/x/

>>5778242
Oh God.
Everything I read of his gets worse.

I don't even understand any of the math but it looks like it was formatted by a goddamn 12-year-old.
Italics everywhere, bolded and underlined stuff everywhere, incomplete sentences, run-on sentences, random exclamation points, quotation marks everywhere, bad grammar, trivial stuff is explained, other stuff is glossed over, shitty formatting oh god my brain hurts.

I don't even understand the math at all and I can still see his writing is a fucking trainwreck.


At least he's trying to teach it though; that's a start.

>>5778260
Not everyone has the privilege of having English as a first language. I bet you'd be equally bad is Japanese was the academic lingua franca.

>>5778516
When he was five years old, he and his family left Japan to go live in New York City. Mochizuki attended Phillips Exeter Academy and graduated in 1985.[6] He entered Princeton University as an undergraduate at age 16 and graduated salutatorian in 1988.[6] He then received a Ph.D. under the supervision of Gerd Faltings at age 23.[1]

>>5778516
Except english practically IS his first language.

>When he was five years old, he and his family left Japan to go live in New York City. Mochizuki attended Phillips Exeter Academy and graduated in 1985. He entered Princeton University as an undergraduate at age 16 and graduated salutatorian in 1988. He then received a Ph.D. under the supervision of Gerd Faltings at age 23.

>>5778524
He probably peak English on a native level, but Japanese is likely to be his first language. Why would he speak English when he was three or at home when he was 12?

>>5778260

Where exactly did you find those? I searched his page for a bit and didn't find any of the things you mentioned.

If only Mochizuki knew how to green text

>simpler
>less words
>More direct
>???
>Comprehensible!

>>5778632
Stop abusing the quote function.

>>5778637
>Make me, faggot.

To >>5778637
>>5778655
>Not me
>Unaware > implies quotations
>Other boards use for condensation
>More of highlighted premise than anything

>>5778026
It's not like machines will magically poof proofs into being.
We trust approximation algorithms for differential equtions because we trust the methodology behind the algorithms,
and we have proven the algorithms to work.

>>5775605
hello everyone nice to meet you my name is sage

So he created a new universe of mathematics.
What does this mean?

Can I just create a random universe of mathematics as well?

How does creating a new mathematic universe help the field of mathematics?

>>5778867
It's not random. The proof doesn't mean that he's forcing something unnatural: means that he discovered a new layer in mathematics. The ABC thing exists and it's real. Proving that with a new world of calculus means that we made a giant leap into knowledge, we discover a new field to explore.

>>5779024
>new world of calculus

>>5779130
read: a more complex way to add and subtract numbers.

>>5779151
You mean a more elegant way to add and subtract numbers.

>>5779153
actually reveals a way to predict numbers that we previously thought that were random.

>>5779151
>>5779153
>>5779288
You know what I would do if I was inventing a new world of calculus?

Two chicks at the same time.

>>5778119
what the actual fuck

>>5777966
Yes, from what Mochizuki writes, there seems to be a loss in information or ability to understand something (an object) when one keeps to the idea of a mathematical category.

>>5775605
This guy has basically done what I've dreamed of doing. Going about defining and creating my own mathematically precise world.

I have no doubt that he actually has accomplished something substantial here, I'm excited to see the rest of the world catch up.

>For a brief moment in October, heads turned when Yale graduate student Vesselin Dimitrov pointed out a potential contradiction in the proof, but Mochizuki quickly responded, saying he had accounted for the problem. Dimitrov retreated, and the flicker of activity subsided.
DOMINATED

This guy is like Perelman on a blend of steroids and amphetamines.

I like him.

Great, more crap we have to learn in College.

>>5779520
HS detected

What is the ABC conjecture?

>>5779548
What is Wikipedia?

>>5779553
I don't know, is there a place where I can go to find out what that is?

So the "type of mathematical object" is going to be better than a category, right? Well, I cant really comprehend his meaning of this new notion, but at least categories suck. Too vague and ugly

You'll never be a crackpot living for decades in isolation solving one of the most important problems in mathematics for yourself in a sprawling 500-page indecipherable magnum opus

>>5779320

f(x) in a, man

When will we reach a point that no one in their lifetime can gain the knowledge necessary to add one more block to the tower and we hit a plateau in the world of mathematics?

>>5777726
I think this is fine - who really gives a fuck?
What else would you interpret it as?

>>5777807
I don't get your picture.
Epsilon-delta IS outdated. Continuous => preimage of an open set is open. Easy!

>>5779568
>but at least categories suck. Too vague and ugly

Engineer detected.

>>5777726
I don't understand what the problem is.

>actually I do, but I think it's rude to point out that you've only seen babby tier math before

This guy can't even speak English properly, and we trust him with this proof?

Ha, yeah right.

>>5780158
we're already there for like 90% of the population

Just read his CV:

>Marital Status: Single (never married)

Damn this guy is a virgin loner loser. Even I've boned more Japanese bitches than him.

>>5780367
how the fuck can you extrapolate that?

>>5780348
Tbh, it seems plausible to me that we could make progress in mathematics just fine without anyone knowing 100% what's going on. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt that there are plenty of published mathematicians right now who don't know every detail leading up to the result in their paper.

For instance, in the past decade, there have been a bunch of papers in combinatorics which involve some pretty non-standard facts about integrable systems. I assure you that not all the combinatoricists(?) who worked on those papers are experts on integrable systems as well.

>>5780369
>>5780367
It's pretty easy. For example, you replied to his post, so if we extrapolate, two people will have replied in the near future.

>gosh would you look at that

PhD student here.

Friend who is PhD at berkeley and attends number theory seminars at stanford said brian conrad was going to try to organize a reading group around it. but then akshay venkatesh found a ton of mathematical issues (I think vesselin dimitrov found some of the same ones; they are both acknowledge in mochizuki's errata). Anyway, so it seems he was a little careless.

(I've looked too and couldn't make sense of stuff, but am not an expert.)

anyway, with those bugs exposed, people are less willing to devote energy, so it's up to someone really diligent. apparently there's someone in japan now who is working with mochizuki to grok it. that's probably the rest of the world's best hope for now to know what this is all about.

>>5780369
Dude, it's fucking obvious. This guy is definitely a virgin.

>>5779568
>categories
>ugly
Pick one, pleb.

>>5776169

what?

>>5780419
Obviously the fourth and second "math" were supposed to be "math".

>>5780367
>>5780374
>Implying Mochizuki doesn't get mad booty from his math research

>>5780367
Were you expecting something different from someone with a "legendary" work ethic?

>>5779568
You have no idea what categories are

>>5780425
what if he's completely asexual?

or maybe he and perelmen are boning away from the spotlight, who knows

>>5777605

Among mathematicians it is very common to not include the differential

>>5780372
thanks

>>5780469
Why do you think Perelman is so reluctant to meet people? He naturally assumes they are bitches wanting the d.

>>5780472
>[citation needed]
No. No it isn't.

>>5779571

this made me lol for almost an hour.

>>5780571

I am a physicist, and no mathematician I know excludes the differential on purpose.

My grandfather is a mathematician, and no mathematician HE knows excludes the differential on purpose.

>>5777944

muh calculus

>>5777682
He would humiliate us with his superior intelligence and wit.

>>5777682
>>5780645
>yfw he is the OP

>>5780656
>Yfw he is the helpful math guy
>hello!

>>5780680
>yfw he's the "who wants to be a millionaire" troll

Well he's Asian, so he's far beyond any of our primitive brains.

>>5780684
>yfw he answers all of our questions, proves his theory to us and we somehow understand everything he says.

>>5780608
Hi, babby tier math underling reporting in. In cases where the measure is always the same, and ambiguity cannot reasonably arise, mathematicians do sometimes omit the dx part.

One instance I can think of is my babby tier real analysis course a couple of years back. In the general situation, where you speak about the integral of an arbitrary f, the dx part doesn't really add anything.
There's also this number theorist from Japan who occasionally omits it. No actual mathematicians care about this at all. The only people who get upset about notation being changed are the people who depend on notation (e.g. engineers and 0th year maths students).

>>5780691
>yfw he was going to post here, but found out only girls were allowed

>>5780859
fuck off with your forced meme

>“I was like, ‘Yes, Google, I am kind of interested in that!’” Ellenberg recalls. “I posted it on Facebook and on my blog, saying, ‘By the way, it seems like Mochizuki solved the ABC Conjecture.’”

how about the $\pm ell$ instead of $\pm\ell$ typos on the first page? you fucks don't even know math

the only reason to ever include "the differential" is to stress the variable of integration or the measure if it isn't completely obvious, $\int f$ is just as good as $\int_X f(x)d\mu(x)$

>yfw the ABC conjecture is false and he 'proved' a false theorem

I have the secret 3 numbers, will post them if 50 people answer to this post

>>5780842
>>5780608
>>5780472
>>5777605
That's part of the problem. It's reasonably common for mathematicians to leave out some standard notation, if only by accident because it is assumed that the reader can figure that out easily on their own.

However I feel from what little I've read that this attitude extends to much of his papers in a field that he created entirely on his own, so everyone is going to be struggling to figure out this delicious Japanese black magic.

>>5780907
hello!

>>5780946
>Barcelona Girl.gif

yes google.. I am hind of interested in that!

http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/anpi-kakunin-jouhou.html lol
Also there is a "FAQ" made by someone else
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/FAQ%20on%20Inter-Universality.pdf

testin

>>5777525
maybe just missing a comma

>>5780946
The \int without dx situation is not an example of this. That's just about aspies doing what they do best. Getting upset about unimportant nonsense.

>>5778132
babby's 1st Inter-universal Teichmüller theory

>>5778119

Oh come on I'm a complete idiot and even I know better than this.

Just read it and it's clearly all wrong, looks like the ABCD theory will just remain a theory (a guess)

>>5780952
Don't, she's uglier than the gif reveals

>>5781296
Just a gauss?

am I the only one seeing this thing

>>5781421
Japanese people loves emoticons

>tfw you will never even approach the level of math required to begin to understand this

THE DUDE IS RIGHT!

FUCK OFF YOU FAGGOTS!

YOU TOO DUMB TO INTO HIGH LEVEL MATHS!

ITS SIMPLE! LOOK I EXPLAIN IT!

With respect to the symblion complex (where R > transformic subsets of the given derivatives) it progresses towards anthraticentric similarities defines by:{ p = (sub) prime, q+ (R,<N)}. The symblion complex is seen within the Reinmann metric as circumventing the definition of boundaries (q - p). the numerical values of the symblion complex is further described as windowing the super real aggregation referred to by R < 1 as evidenced by reflectional trans-formic analogues derived from empirical proofs (as denoted above)

ME GENIUS TOO!

>>5781474
>tfw you will never even approach the level of math required to begin to understand this

why is this notable?

I wouldn't expect Shinichi to understand chemical engineering as well as I do.

Nor will most people approach a level of understanding of a plumber or electrician in their related fields.

>>5775636
This is the biggest thing in mathematics since Perlmans proof, fuck off if you don't want to talk about math.

>>5780302
Prove me wrong first

I still think "types of mathematical objects" might be better than cats if mozisuka makes them better to understand. Cats are too vague and you know it, bastards

>>5781788
What's vague about categories? They're just directed graphs, only with possibly a proper class of vertices instead of a set of vertices. Proper classes are of course easily dealt with if you know basic set theory, but if you don't, just use a universe to avoid proper classes.

But tbh, I don't know what someone who doesn't even know elementary set theory would need category theory for.

>>5781796
> But tbh, I don't know what someone who doesn't even know elementary set theory would need category theory for.
ad hominem, my friend?

>>5782219
how is that an ad hominem?

>>5782219
No, that's just the truth.

Whats the story here?

Can anyone even tell us what the magnitude of imortance this ABC conjecture is like?

I mean, is it some fucking awesome breakthrough holy shit stuff, like when guys first thought up the concept of negative numbers and imaginary numbers?

Or is it yeah gee whizz stuff but merely a curiosity of mathematics, but not stand the world on its head stuff.

Given that nobody except Mochizuki can actually understand what he wrote.are we left to conclude that his proof is one of the following three possibilities:

1) Absolute batshit insane rubbish, which makes him either a nut job, despite his credentials, or the biggest mathematical troll in all of history.

2) Stuff written by a guy who just happens to be very poor at communicating his ideas about something that although interesting is not a revolutionary new way of thinking.

3) That he is the new Issac Newton of maths, with people in the future looking back and going "oh fuck, and at first people just didn't understand just how important his work was because they just simply couldn't understand what he was saying!"

Given the guys use of freaking pointless exclamations marks (in a mathematical paper?) the insane repetition the same sentences within a single paragraph, bizarre use of italics and bold print, I am leaning towards the first option myself.

>>5783464
You sound insufferable to be around.

Proofs to these problems are important because of the methods employed. If his methods work for this problem, then there is good chance they can work for other problems.

>>5775605
Let's talk also about Harald Helfgott, a preuvian mathematician who released the proof for Goldbach's weak conjecture.

>>5781725
What's your point, other than the concept of a renaissance man is thoroughly dead?

>local hermit self-publishes 800 page prose novel
>nobody can understand it - apparently it's not written in normal english
>some think it may be the greatest novel in history
>even those people don't understand it

so who gives a shit? the idea of mathematical proof is to convince others of the consistency of a result. a proof that fails to communicate proves nothing.