Academia Mafia

[Anonymous No.10083341]

So, in lieu of the last month's HM/SS encounter I wanted to ask something.

Is it true there's a mafia related to the Fields medalists that opposes independent research such as Mochizuki's?
If so, what's their goal, why would they oppose independent research, even if Mochi's work leads to nothing. According to him, the krauts were unqualified to discuss the subject a hand yet the whole community, or at least a vocal part of it, pronounced itself in favor of SS declarations.

Please don't send me to /pol/, nothing against the board, which I'm a frequent reader, but I'd like to keep it /sci/ related without involving IdPol stuff.

Reminder for the unaware:
SS = Scholze & Stix
HM = Hoshi & Mochizuki

If you want more context maybe this could help: >>/sci/thread/10017798

[Anonymous No.10083415]

Interested.

[Anonymous No.10083733]

I think it's more about culture clash.

[Anonymous No.10084561]

b-bump

[Anonymous No.10084563]

>>10083341
>Is it true there's a mafia related to the Fields medalists that opposes independent research such as Mochizuki's?
honestly, the answer is no.

the mochizuki result has confounded the entire community of mathematicians outside maybe 12 or 15 guys, most of whom (~10) work in the same department as Moch and the rest are guys who claim to have studied his theory for single-digit but >2 years.

he made an incomprehensible theory with which he tries to make a mathematically groundbreaking claim, but nobody can understand it except his lackeys and like a few other guys

scholze is a young dude with lots of talent that basically volunteered to try and make sense of it, and has found he can't. and nobody else can; there is no way to translate it to anything understandable by anybody but a clique of mostly mochizuki "students".

so honestly, it can't be regarded as a proof. not even fields medalists can understand that shit, so that's mochizuki's problem, not everybody else's, imo

[Anonymous No.10084572]

>>10083341
>According to him, the krauts were unqualified to discuss the subject a hand yet the whole community, or at least a vocal part of it, pronounced itself in favor of SS declarations.
according to me everyone who doesn't believe my proof of RH is unqualified
bam now the math mafia has a hit out on me for being too woke

[Anonymous No.10084573]

>>10084563
IUTT is only incomprehensible to brainlets and Nazis. In the case of SS it's both.

[Anonymous No.10084582]

>>10084573
fine, then give me a simple explanation of the abc proof. cut as many corners as you like, just make it understandable, ok?

[Anonymous No.10084600]

>>10084573
>IUTT is only incomprehensible to brainlets and Nazis
>Nazis

But Teichmuller himself was a literal fervent nazi that abandoned his professorship to fight on the eastern front and ratted out all the jews in his department

[Anonymous No.10084601]

>>10083341
>If so, what's their goal, why would they oppose independent research
They see it as a cheap competitor, outside of Academia's circle, therefore they officially ignore it. That is the general rule. Am I wrong? Suppose you are researching independently, don't you think Academia will resist acknowledging your work unless it's so obviously proved? It's like expecting to be recognized without paying anyone.

What is the gap they identified in Mochizuki's proof exactly?

[Anonymous No.10084607]

>>10084601
that one proof in the third paper where after like 20 pages of every proof being "this follows directly from the definitions" then he goes on an 8 page "proof" of some bullshit which has like only 1 or 2 equations accompanied by long english explanations of the "ideas needed" to complete the actual proofs.

3.11 or 3.12 i forget, but the proof is utter hand-waving imo. you can tell easily by the fact that it's mostly text with nearly 0 equations

[Anonymous No.10084610]

>>10084607
>you can tell easily by the fact that it's mostly text with nearly 0 equations
That is not how you judge these things. Care to say exactly what is the mistake?

[Anonymous No.10084612]

>>10084610
no, i don't know enough to say where the mistake is. but i trust Scholze who is much better at math than me, and who did dig into this, and made the same conclusion

it's not a proof. whether it's right or wrong is not what i'm saying -- i'm saying that to prove something, it needs to be real math, and this clearly isn't. the fact nobody can follow his logic, even within the mathematical community, makes it obvious that it's not a proof.

a real proof should be a clear, logical succession of equations that all follow logically. if mochizuki cannot produce this, then i conclude it's larpage

[El Arcón No.10084621]

>>10083341
>why would they oppose independent research
Maybe they inserted themselves into science wrongfully through the main scientist's mother and she is trying to give the main scientist's accolades to the academic mafia. Since the main scientist is not an academic, they would have no standing with their pleas to him to perpetuate academia.


>>10084563
>basically volunteered to try and make sense of it,
the mafia commissioned him to do a hit piece you mean

>>10084601
>unless it's so obviously proved?

>>10084601
>What is the gap they identified in Mochizuki's proof exactly?
pic

>>10084607
>you can tell easily by the fact that it's mostly text with nearly 0 equations
>>10084610
>Care to say exactly what is the mistake?
ha

[Anonymous No.10084623]

>>10084612
>a real proof should be a clear, logical succession of equations that all follow logically.
You are clearly not talking about equations here then. I'm sure you are using the word "equation" to talk about mathematical notation in general which of course already implies your superficiality.

[Anonymous No.10084624]

>>10083341

Truly the most horrifying thing I learned while completing my degree was just how social academia is. These people don't care about information, they care about their image. They will fight each other to get their names on a fucking molecule. If your paper says something they don't like they will invent some bureaucratic bullshit to discredit you like "not enough references" or "poor sample size". They will ask you to profess your allegiance to (((diversity))) on the college application and then smugly profess that everyone who disagrees with that worldview is "uneducated". Money makes this industry go 'round like any other via grants and whatnot, and the social power of The Labcoat is palpable. People will drink up anything "the scientists agree upon". How easy do you think it would be, if you wanted the whole world to believe something, to pay off a few key Labcoats and force the rest to fall in line out of fear of losing their "credibility"?

Scientists are people. Never forget that.

[Anonymous No.10084630]

>>10084621
Get out schizo

[Anonymous No.10084632]

>>10084623
no, i’m talking about equations. if he has a real proof based in actual mathematics it should be translatable to conventional notation

[Anonymous No.10084633]

>>10084624
Agreed. Academia is full of worthless faggots who deserve to be hung. It’s all about branding for these whores.

[Anonymous No.10084637]

>>10083341
Unironically research the illuminati properly this time you child. Thesr mafiad all stem from shadow world government

[Anonymous No.10084646]

>>10084632
Now I know for sure you don't know what you are talking about. Do you have any mental illness I should be aware of? Or you just a dumb-dumb forcing yourself in here?

[Anonymous No.10084647]

>>10084646
do you have an argument? are you actually saying that mochizuki's result cannot be expressed in normal mathematical notation?

if so, then i conclude _you_ have no knowledge of mathematics and that you need to seek medical mental health treatment for believing that mochizuki's math transcends normal math notation

[El Arcón No.10084649]

>>10084624
>Money makes this industry go 'round
Physics and math don't really go around so much as exist on a minimal trickle of intravenous cash hydration to stay alive.

>>10084624
>wanted the whole world to believe something
Reinhart-Rogoff anyone?


>>10084632
pic
The Reinhart-Rogoff error – or how not to Excel at economics
http://theconversation.com/the-reinhart-rogoff-error-or-how-not-to-excel-at-economics-13646

[Anonymous No.10084655]

>>10084647
I'm not saying mochizuki's work "transcends" normal math notation, I'm saying, again, that you don't know what the word "equations" mean, which could be either out of pure lack of neurons or a dysfunction of those when you don't derive meaning of words. Equations are defined as statements of mathematical equality (a = b), and so, they are merely a part of the statements used in advanced mathematical proofs. So hey, maybe you are thinking of some specific high school algebraic proof where no new notation is introduced and the steps are so obvious that no text is even required.

[Anonymous No.10084658]

>>10084649
fuck, dude, i helped writing this wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt
i never thought /sci/ would care about this stuff.... damn. anyhow rogoff, despite my respect for him as a chess grandmaster, is clearly not good at data analysis and i feel he's politically motivated in his economics work. clearly he fudged the numbers in the Growth In.. paper so i would never trust him economically since then

thanks for bringing that up

anyhow i don't think Mochizuki is politically motivated; his motivation is pure ego

[Anonymous No.10084663]

>>10084655
the abc conjecture is an inequality
c > rad(abc)^(1+eps)

fine, not a strict equality, but let's not quibble over equation vs. inequality. my point is that if there's a real proof, he could take the left side and right side and prove that one is greater than the other using equations and inequalities. and he hasn't. it's all a bunch of english sentences and hand-waving that nobody buys, except his buddies, which doesn't count as a real proof

[El Arcón No.10084671]

>>10084630
me and you and/or your originator are going to have to do something about your disrespect. Don't forget. I won't.

>>10084655
I never saw a math paper without a bunch of sentences in it. They wouldn't put them in there if they weren't part of the idea.

>>10084658
np

[Anonymous No.10085258]

>>10084637
I've made me research on them for years but I didn't thought of them taking part in the math/physics departments, I'd understand their actions in the Biology one, for example.

[Anonymous No.10085310]

>>10085258
Mark Dice has some good sober research on the Illuminati.

[Anonymous No.10085793]

>>10085310
Is that so? I hope he isn't one of hundred of people whose sole purpose is to poison the well

[Anonymous No.10085815]

>>10084600
Based as fuck

[Anonymous No.10085817]

>>10084621
stop latching onto him, you are not like him

[Anonymous No.10085820]

This thread : trigniggered autisticals

[Anonymouse No.10085883]

poo

[Anonymous No.10085887]

>>10084624
So you’re mad about niggers?

[Anonymous No.10086127]

>>10083341
Weeaboo zealotry is going too far

[Anonymous No.10086147]

>>10083341
its these guys right here

[Anonymous No.10086164]

>>10086127
t. jew

[Anonymous No.10086185]

>>10084600
Checked

[Anonymous No.10086351]

>>10086164
Yeah, the Jews are for the “SS” team.
Mochifags are this board's cunnyposters

[Anonymous No.10086357]

>>10084600
Basado y rojoempastillado

[Anonymous No.10086360]

>>10086357
Salí de acá boludo.

[Anonymous No.10087127]

NEPOTISM

[Anonymous No.10087211]

>>10083341
He and several japaneses mathematics get outside langlands program

As noted by Lucia, large parts of number theory are completely "beyond the scope of the Langlands program": most of analytic number theory, obviously, is, but also many important, active and beautiful subfields of algebraic number theory -- for a list of examples, see for instance the list of publications of Bjorn Poonen, which cover a large scope of subjects in algebraic number theory, but touch the Langlands program only tangentially.

To make sense of the proposed quote of Mochizuki, it is therefore necessary to give a much more restrictive interpretation of "number theory", which I imagine would be in this context the set of number-theoretic questions that can be solved or at least attacked by understanding the Galois groups of number fields, together with all its attached tractors of decomposition groups, inertia subgroups, and Frobenius elements. This set contains all the reciprocity laws, proved or conjectured, and many diophantine equations and problems, from Fermat's last theorem to Mordell's conjecture and its generalizations, through Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer.

My guess is that Mochizuki means that even in this relatively restricted sense, many phenomenons of number theory lie beyond the scope of Langlands. In saying so, he is following an idea that Grothendieck tried to disseminate in the 80's ("avec force", as Deligne said), which I will try to summarize as follows. The Langlands program tries to understand Galois groups by looking at their representations, that is, their action over vector spaces over fields or slightly more generally over modules over commutative rings. At any rate, these objects form an abelian category (even Tannakian), a linear object. Grothendieck's theory of Motives should be attached to this general program, because the motives also are "linear objects", and as Langlands

[Anonymous No.10087212]

>>10087211
program tries to understand Galois groups by looking at their representations, that is, their action over vector spaces over fields or slightly more generally over modules over commutative rings. At any rate, these objects form an abelian category (even Tannakian), a linear object. Grothendieck's theory of Motives should be attached to this general program, because the motives also are "linear objects", and as Langlands himself famously argued in his famous 1979 paper "Automorphic Representations, Shimura Varieties, and Motives. Ein Märchen".

But, Grothendieck argues, there are many other kind of objects on which we may let Galois group act in order to study them in a different direction than with representations: sets, for instance, as in the version of Galois theory developed in SGA 1 (1960), or non-abelian (profinite) groups, as the étale fundamental groups of various variety over Q
Q
: to this aspect belong all the theory of Grothendieck-Teichmüller, the Dessins d'enfants, the anabelian geometry. That is of course a subject in which Mochizuki has himself proved some remarkable results, and which he claims to have enormously developed up to the point of deducing the ABC conjecture.

An example of a number theoretic (in the restricted sense mentioned above) problem that arguably lies beyond the Langlands program but that the practicians of anabelian geometry plans to study successfully is Mordell's conjecture (proved by Faltings, it is true, with methods not so far from the Langlands program, at least in that they study "linear objects", namely abelian varieties) and all its generalizations (still open). For a very interesting, if speculative, discussion of these questions, see "Galois Theory and Diophantine Geometry" by Minhyong Kim.

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/219264/mochizukis-phenomena-in-number-theory-outside-the-scope-of-langlands

[Anonymous No.10088250]

bump

[Anonymous No.10090018]

>>10084600
Literally /our guy/

[Anonymous No.10090985]

>>10087211
>>10087212
tl;dr: whiteys are seething because a yellow person is smarter than them

[Anonymous No.10091406]

>>10086360
>can't even spictext properly
que clase de comemierda jajajaJAJAJajajaJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA