Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 318 KB, 1440x1765, mochizuki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297797 No.11297797 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Mochizuki's blogposting, and he's not happy

https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/shinichi0329/diary/202001050000/
>Current status report on papers on the Interuniversal Teichmüller theory (IUTeich): "The story of a miserable black hole emerging in the mathematical world" (01/05)

Excerpt:
>So why wouldn't it be normal “peer review in the normal form” (eg, from submission of a dissertation to around 2016-2017) by the right researchers (based on their proficiency in the academic content of the dissertation)? is it. As pointed out above, I do not know anything about the mechanism of non-constructive "black hole state" generation or the identity of the generated "black screen", but some sort of (= complex and sometimes " It seems that the situation is caused by obstruction activities that make certain powers in the overseas mathematical world the "center of epicenter" by an indirect mechanism through "fake degree". Certain foreign powers in the mathematical world are those who are extremely hostile to me and my research (although it is clear from years of online writing and slander). There is much mystery about the cause of the intense hostility, and there is a strong impression that there are also a number of non-mathematical factors such as pure emotional theories and various social, cultural and political backgrounds. On the other hand, however, I think that a mathematical misunderstanding (which has been mentioned many times and will be explained in detail below) is also a major factor.

>> No.11297802
File: 16 KB, 270x270, d24085f7fa23f20cff795dc68e041e2e.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297802

>> No.11297807

>mochizuki chooses to publish his shit on his personal website, avoiding peer-review
>mochizuki gets butthurt when nobody thinks it’s legit
he is clearly a memer. whatever woman-tier whining he posts will not make any difference. even if he had something mathematically good he killed it by trying to be edgy. he fucked up and his IUT is therefore worthless

>> No.11297812

>>11297797
The poor guy is about to lose it :(
Counting down to meltdown.
Good luck explaining that the government is working to disparriage your work brother Mochizuki. Better men than you have tried.
It begins.

>> No.11297816

>>11297797
Mochizuki:
>Theorem: i'm right and you're wrong
>Proof: 1600 pages of buzzwords
>Corollary: kys fucktard
>Proof: Exercise

>> No.11297818

>>11297807
>>mochizuki chooses to publish his shit on his personal website, avoiding peer-review
That's not what happened.

>> No.11297835

Can anyone explain why corollary 3.2 or whichever one it was, was deemed "irreconcilable" for his proof?

>> No.11297837

>>11297818
>That's not what happened
but that is what happened, if not, prove me wrong with sources

>> No.11297844

>>11297835
Cor 3.2 was the crux of the argument. The rest was just wheel spinning and definitions. And Cor 3.2 was just nonsense when you looked at it. It's just that it took so long to find because it was buried amid all the autismo junk.

>> No.11297850

>>11297844
Holy fuck that's hilarious, do you think he intentionally trolled the math community, or is he genuinely a schizo?

>> No.11297856

>>11297797
It is political, the West is afraid of the East
Mochizuki has been chosen as a scapegoat to show what happens when you don't toe the line

>> No.11297861

>>11297844
then explain why Cor 3.2 was nonsense instead of jumping on the (((fields medal))) band wagon

>> No.11297864

>>11297850
i suspect he is a super egotistical person who sought out a very obscure but actually false method for justifying his ego and lives on in academia through further obfuscations

>> No.11297867

>>11297835
>Can anyone explain why corollary 3.2 or whichever one it was, was deemed "irreconcilable" for his proof?
see:
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/SS2018-05.pdf
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/SS2018-08.pdf

>>11297837
>but that is what happened, if not, prove me wrong with sources
see:
https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/shinichi0329/diary/202001050000/
>So what is the status of peer review of actual papers? First, in August 2012, four consecutive IUTeich papers were submitted to a certain mathematics journal, and thereafter, a peer-reviewed report was issued once (= May 2016 = About 3 years and 8 months after the submission of the paper. ) Only received. The peer-reviewed report (in English, about 5 pages) praised IUTeich's serial papers (although we do not intend to publish them), and said, "I highly recommend publication of these papers." Minor mistakes that I and other stakeholders overlooked, such as about 20 typographical errors, were pointed out, but we responded immediately to those points. Also, in September 2017, there was a notification from the journal requesting the submission of a completed version of the dissertation (that is, as a nuance, "final version for production publishing"). did. On the other hand, since May 2016, journals have not sent any official documents, such as peer-reviewed reports. As emphasized in the 2019.01.02 article, from a historical perspective,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156623-mathematician-set-to-publish-abc-proof-almost-no-one-understands/
>Ivan Fesenko at the University of Nottingham, UK, disagrees, saying that “triple efforts” would have been applied to make sure that everything was fine before publication. And that the choice of journal can be explained by the fact that the top mathematicians in the field are Japanese.

>> No.11297869

>>11297861
Nah, many mathematicians got absolutely walled on the logic behind Cor 3.2, I'd trust them.

>> No.11297874

>>11297861
I have no idea, I look at it like >>11297869 does.

>> No.11297875

>>11297867
i’ve seen this all before. it convinces nobody in the community nor anybody else. math is about clear demonstrations that establish incontrovertible truths, and mochi has failed at that in an incontrovertible way

>> No.11297877

>treating Satoshi Nakamoto like crap

Your will pay for your foolishness, dumb Gaijin.

>> No.11297878

>>11297875
>i’ve seen this all before.
Then why claim he's avoiding peer review?

>> No.11297882
File: 100 KB, 797x447, 77df66e5beaf81faa9a197169c5193f75c908d769decf01fa892aa01f575d798.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297882

Who cares about the German math mafia

Post happy Shinichis

>> No.11297883

>>11297878
afaik none of his IUT shit passed peer-review

>> No.11297896

>>11297883
>afaik none of his IUT shit passed peer-review
Obviously, that's what half the blogpost was discussing.

>> No.11297900

>>11297896
so? if it didn’t pass peer-review then it’s shit. right?

don’t start on “muh sabine-tier we don’t need peer review” crap please. or else mathfags admit they have fallen to our (science) level

>> No.11297937

>>11297864
You just described every schizo. There's something with schizophrenia and the strong grandiosity that's present in 90% of the people with it. Maybe some future psychologist from the 23rd century will finally discover the tie when the field has finally stopped being complete pseudoscientific bullshit. Maybe schizo is just your ego couping your consciousness and assuming full control.

>> No.11298056
File: 226 KB, 1156x684, TIMESAND___Collage.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11298056

>>11297875
>math is about clear demonstrations that establish incontrovertible truths
this is true but it does not do justice to the fact that publishing math is about sucking the government's dick.

>>11297900
>if it didn’t pass peer-review then it’s shit. right?
lots of things are denied peer review due to political machinations. Things that are denied peer review didn't pass peer-review, but they didn't fail either. Talking about me, btw, not Mochi.

>> No.11298063

>>11297937
well, there's not much mystery here. take amphetamines for a few months, steadily upping your dose and you will get grandiose. it's just from excess dopamine

>> No.11298158

His "proof" of ABC is a failure.

>> No.11298223
File: 101 KB, 500x600, phenotype 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11298223

>>11297882
Based phenotype

>> No.11298555
File: 503 KB, 719x403, Scholze.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11298555

>hoes mad

>> No.11298786

Mochizuki has a correct proof. (((they))) just don't want it to be true.

>> No.11298812

>>11297837

It's totally normal in mathematics to put your paper up on something like arxiv while it's in the process of being peer reviewed.

>> No.11298815

>>11298786
The you should you join him in writing up the proof correctly, which clearly he does not know how to.

>> No.11298822
File: 97 KB, 900x800, 1578458798722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11298822

>>11298815
A lot of Japanese mathematicians and Ivan Fesenko agree with him. Why is their word lesser to the field medalist jews?

>> No.11298841

>>11298822
Why does it matter if some people agree with him? Mathematical correctness isn't decided by democratic vote, and even if it was his small camp of supporters is hugely outnumbered by skeptics anyway.

>> No.11298961
File: 173 KB, 1250x258, IF.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11298961

>>11298822
>Ivan Fesenko

>> No.11298965

>>11298961
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gokun/DOCUMENTS/abc_ver6.pdf

>> No.11298967

>>11298961
I don't get it.

What is the context?

>> No.11298973

>>11298967
>>11298965

>> No.11299855

>>11298815
>The you should you join him in writing up the proof correctly, which clearly he does not know how to.
Which part of it is incorrect?

>> No.11299859

>>11299855
3.12

>> No.11299862

>>11299859
>3.12
Which part of 3.12 is incorrect?

>> No.11299866

>>11299862
The whole thing

>> No.11299878

>>11299866
>The whole thing
Why is it incorrect that since |log(q)| > 0, we may assume that -|log(theta)| < 0 whenever -|log(theta)| is real?

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action