ABC conjecture

[Anonymous No.11528216]

Mochizuki won, White pig lose.
The Japanese are the strongest desusi osusi~.

[Anonymous No.11528227]

Mathematical proof that rocked number theory to be published.

Scholze and Stix「ummmmm」

[Anonymous No.11528247]

based smug mathman

[Anonymous No.11528283]

Based smug anime girl.

[Anonymous No.11528624]

>>11528216
whitu pigu go home!!!

[Anonymous No.11528929]

https://mainichi.jp/articles/20200403/k00/00m/040/093000c

He's at it again.

[Anonymous No.11529019]

>>11528227
According to that Nature article (which apparently I can't link to since the board thinks it's spam) Scholze's response was basically "yeah whatever" and Stix offered no comment.

[Anonymous No.11529054]

>>11529019
profound ignorance of the elementary theory of heights

[Anonymous No.11529055]

again?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156623-mathematician-set-to-publish-abc-proof-almost-no-one-understands/

[Anonymous No.11529077]

>>11529055
That article is only based on rumors, the latest is based on a press conference today held by multiple mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.11529504]

>>11528216
8 years since the release of this thing and the most notable mathematician that actually reviewed it thinks it's dead. Sad.

[Anonymous No.11529516]

>>11529504
You mean the mathematician who had no response to Mochizuki's counter-points?

[Anonymous No.11529521]

>>11529019
No what Scholtze said was more like "it's still wrong".
The current reviewers said there will be additional explanation for Scholtze problem with the proof.
I wonder how it will all go.

[Anonymous No.11529548]

>>11529516
Mochizuki didn't offer a meaningful rebuttal according to Woit and the overwhelming majority of the mathematical community AND everyone who's studied the paper who isn't in Mochizuki's inner circle.

Mochi has literally gone from serious mathematician to crank.

[Anonymous No.11529554]

>>11529548
>Mochizuki didn't offer a meaningful rebuttal according to Woit and the overwhelming majority of the mathematical community AND everyone who's studied the paper who isn't in Mochizuki's inner circle.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.11529575]

>>11529548
>Mochi has literally gone from serious mathematician to crank.
That eventually always happens with geniuses, see Newton, Galois, Grothendieck...

[Anonymous No.11529576]

>>11529554
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10560
https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/

Terry Tao, though a non-specialist, even commented. It's not a good look to have not one but two Fields Medalists erring on the side of doubt lmao.

[Anonymous No.11529584]

>>11529575
Yeah but they revolutionised their subjects BEFORE they went hopelessly mad. Mochi proved some good stuff, fair play, but then skipped the "revolutionise the world" thing and went straight into crank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Szpiro the ghost of Mochizuki's future right here.

[Anonymous No.11529590]

>>11529576
>https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10560
"Looking through these Scholze/Stix/Mochizuki documents, my non-expert opinion is that Mochizuki does not seem to effectively address the Scholze-Stix objections, which are aimed at a very specific piece of his argument." contains no mathematical substance regarding Mochizuki's counter-points.

>https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-
conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/
This is dated prior to Mochizuki's counter-points.

[Anonymous No.11529597]

>>11529590
>contains no mathematical substance regarding Mochizuki's counter-points.
I mean Woit is a professional mathematician at Columbia but I'm sure there's no justification sis.
>This is dated prior to Mochizuki's counter-points.
Ask Tao on his blog whether or not he's changed his mind. As it stands the vast majority of mathematicians concur with Scholze. It's a load of shit and Mochizuki is a crank.

[Anonymous No.11529598]

>>11529597
>I mean Woit is a professional mathematician at Columbia but I'm sure there's no justification sis.
He's a self-proclaimed non-expert.

[Anonymous No.11529607]

>>11529598
He's still a professional mathematician at one of the elite institutions on the planet he also happens to be in agreement with most area experts and two fields medalists. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say his opinion is more serious than yours anon.

[Anonymous No.11529617]

>>11529607
>He's still a professional mathematician at one of the elite institutions on the planet he also happens to be in agreement with most area experts and two fields medalists.
Most area experts (Fesenko, Tan, Hoshi, Yamashita, Porowski, Minamide) actually appear to be in agreement with Mochizuki. Who are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.11529624]

>>11529617
>Most area experts
>Proceeds to cite Mochizuki's circle
>Even though even Yamashita discredited Fesenko's claimed understanding of IUTT

[Anonymous No.11529638]

>>11529624
Fesenko and Porowski work in the UK, and Saiti who I did not list also works in the UK. Do you consider anyone who is in agreement with Mochizuki to be in his inner circle? Also who are the area experts you referred to?

[Anonymous No.11529661]

>>11529638
>defending him with such intensity
Montezuma plz stop, we know it's you.

[Anonymous No.11529667]

>>11529661
>another unsubstantial response
Ok Scholze

[Anonymous No.11529670]

>>11529516
>You mean the mathematician who had no response to Mochizuki's counter-points?
I know this is difficult for your rotted imageboard brain to understand, but getting the last word in an argument doesn't necessarily make you right.

[Anonymous No.11529672]

>>11529667
>unsubstantial
Not at all. You're defending him with such intensity that the only reasonable explanation as to why is that you're him. QED

[Anonymous No.11529674]

>>11529670
>I know this is difficult for your rotted imageboard brain to understand, but getting the last word in an argument doesn't necessarily make you right.
I know this is difficult for your rotted imageboard brain to understand, but I never implied that.

[Anonymous No.11529684]

>>11529672
>You're defending him with such intensity that the only reasonable explanation as to why is that you're him.
The facts are fairly straightforward, I'm not sure what intensity you refer to.

[Anonymous No.11529687]

>>11529638
Fesenko's credibility was injured when Mochizuki's colleague Yamashita flat out said that Fesenko was just "pretending" to understand it: https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/c8dpuh/mathematics_guy_claims_to_have_proved_something/
>Inb4 reddit
So even the tenuous claim to have support outside of the incestuous Kyoto mathematics circle is thrown into doubt because apparently Yamashita doesn't think Fesenko really gets it. Besides which Fesenko and Porowski are two of the very few mathematicians outside of the Kyoto circle to actually back the "proof". Calegari of Chicago says that everytime he speaks off the record with a subject area expert they think he's making unjustified assertions:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/titans-of-mathematics-clash-over-epic-proof-of-abc-conjecture-20180920/
And by day 4 of the gathering of subject experts at Oxford held by Kim everybody was just as confused as before. And we are now 8 years hence from the release of the paper.

Mochizuki is almost certainly wrong. We aren't living in the 19th century anymore and nobody is dismissing him like they dismissed Galois, people are trying absolutely desperately to understand him on his terms and yet nothing is coming of it. Kyoto mathematics has literally been destroyed by one autist.

[Anonymous No.11529697]

>>11529674
You implied that it matters at all whether or not they responded to Mochizuki's response. If their criticism was valid, then it makes no difference whether or not they continue to rebut Mochizuki's autistic screeching over and over. Since your implication that Mochizuki's unanswered comeback somehow matters does not arise from you actually knowing there's something meaningful in there (because I would bet you my left testicle you understand neither the proof nor the refutation nor the counter-points) the only possible reason to say that is that you think that you can't call him wrong as long as he's still talking.

[Anonymous No.11529699]

>>11529687
>Fesenko's credibility was injured when Mochizuki's colleague Yamashita flat out said that Fesenko was just "pretending" to understand it
Not relevant to the mathematical substance.

>Calegari
Not an area expert, and the article you linked even has a quote from him saying no one can point to an error.

>And by day 4 of the gathering of subject experts at Oxford held by Kim everybody was just as confused as before. And we are now 8 years hence from the release of the paper.
This was prior to Mochizuki's counter-points.

[Anonymous No.11529710]

>>11529699
>Not relevant to the mathematical substance.
Fesenko cannot be said to be a credible expert if even members of the Kyoto circle think he's not. So either he's not an authority, or Yamashita's not an authority, which is it? Either way your circle of "experts" got one smaller, if Fesenko is legit, then Mochizuki was unable to explain his "proof" to his closest colleagues and supporters, if Fesenko is a pretender, then it has no support outside of Kyoto and Mochi's immediate circle of influence. Either way it's not a good look.
>Not an area expert
But he absolutely has more contact with them than you do, and he's saying that they disagree with you.
>and the article you linked even has a quote from him saying no one can point to an error.
Until Scholze and Stix did, which has brought everything into clear focus.
>This was prior to Mochizuki's counter-points.
I can absolutely guarantee you that almost NOBODY in mathematics takes them seriously.

What're your credentials btw? Can you claim to be an expert? Where did you do your undergrad and postgrad?

[Anonymous No.11529720]

>>11529697
>Since your implication that Mochizuki's unanswered comeback somehow matters does not arise from you actually knowing there's something meaningful in there (because I would bet you my left testicle you understand neither the proof nor the refutation nor the counter-points)
Mochizuki's counter-points are very straight-forward if you had actually read them. Scholze or Stix would just need to re-purpose their refutation without the simplifications to Mochizuki's theory, but curiously this has never appeared.

>the only possible reason to say that is that you think that you can't call him wrong as long as he's still talking.
"Not calling Mochizuki wrong" is very different than "calling Mochizuki necessarily right".

[Anonymous No.11529726]

>>11529720
>Mochizuki's counter-points are very straight-forward if you had actually read them.
You cannot explain them in any more mathematical clarity than something about "certain simplifications" copied from a blog post. You have no idea what any of them are. I guarantee this.

[Anonymous No.11529732]

>>11529710
>Fesenko cannot be said to be a credible expert if even members of the Kyoto circle think he's not. So either he's not an authority, or Yamashita's not an authority, which is it? Either way your circle of "experts" got one smaller, if Fesenko is legit, then Mochizuki was unable to explain his "proof" to his closest colleagues and supporters, if Fesenko is a pretender, then it has no support outside of Kyoto and Mochi's immediate circle of influence. Either way it's not a good look.
As previously stated, petty conflict between two mathematicians is irrelevant to the mathematical substance. You say 'members' when you likely only refer to Yamashita, while Mochizuki has acknowledged Fesenko multiple times which makes this conflict even less relevant. Also even if Fesenko is a pretender, why would it remove the support by the other mathematicians I listed who are outside Mochizuki's inner circle?

>Until Scholze and Stix did, which has brought everything into clear focus.
And now we're back to the unanswered counter-points which brought Scholze and Stix's misunderstandings into clear focus.

[Anonymous No.11529734]

>>11529575
how did galois turn into a crank? sperging out over politics?

[Anonymous No.11529739]

>>11529726
>You cannot explain them in any more mathematical clarity than something about "certain simplifications" copied from a blog post.
Which part do you need clarified?

[Anonymous No.11529745]

i mean for me, the intuition behind a + b = c just clicked, i didn't have to think much for it to make sense. did this guy really spend that long trying to understand it?

[Anonymous No.11529746]

>>11529739
Select one of them. Your choice. Literally any of the counter-points that involves specific, precise math and not an intuitive summary.

For harping about "mathematical substance" all thread you haven't posted a single line of math yet.

[Anonymous No.11529774]

>>11529732
>As previously stated, petty conflict between two mathematicians is irrelevant to the mathematical substance.
Except if those who claim to be experts cannot agree on the substance, it throws what they support into doubt.
>You say 'members' when you likely only refer to Yamashita, while Mochizuki has acknowledged Fesenko multiple times which makes this conflict even less relevant
So then one of his supporters in the Kyoto circle is incorrect?
>why would it remove the support by the other mathematicians I listed who are outside Mochizuki's inner circle?
Minamide and Porowski are all within Fesenko's sphere of influence. If Fesenko is a pretender it's unlikely that those who were influenced in their understandings directly by Fesenko have good understandings. So far all you've provided is two groups of mathematicians, the Kyoto and Nottingham groups. Other than those two groups the plurality of mathematicians with expertise in Anabelian Geometry LIKE Stix(Bonn) and Kim(Oxford) and like the mathematicians Calegari(Chicago) and Brian Conrad(Stanford) who are professional mathematicians and work with many experts themselves have huge doubts.
>And now we're back to Mochizuki's autistic screeching.
Not valid

I repeat my question, what qualifications do you have that entitle you to talk about this? Are you an expert in Anabelian Geometry, where did you do your phD if at all? I'd put money that you don't have anything from top 10 ranked institution nationally.

[Anonymous No.11529790]

>>11529746
>Select one of them. Your choice. Literally any of the counter-points that involves specific, precise math and not an intuitive summary.
As previously stated the counter-points are very straight-forward, I was offering to clarify a part which you find unclear. I need to know a part that you find unclear to do so.

[Anonymous No.11529819]

>>11529774
>Except if those who claim to be experts cannot agree on the substance, it throws what they support into doubt.
Which part of the theory do Yamashita and Fesenko disagree on?

>So then one of his supporters in the Kyoto circle is incorrect?
Incorrect regarding what?

>Minamide and Porowski are all within Fesenko's sphere of influence.
Porowski sure, but how are Minamide or Saiti affected?

>If Fesenko is a pretender it's unlikely that those who were influenced in their understandings directly by Fesenko have good understandings.
Highly unlikely given the on-going collaborative work between Mochizuki, Hoshi, Fesenko, Minamide, Porowski.

>So far all you've provided is two groups of mathematicians, the Kyoto and Nottingham groups.
Also Saiti. Dupuy, Joshi and Hilado are all expanding on IUT from America.

>Other than those two groups the plurality of mathematicians with expertise in Anabelian Geometry LIKE Stix(Bonn) and Kim(Oxford)
Stix is likely the only area expert who has publicly offered any sort of refutation.

>and like the mathematicians Calegari(Chicago) and Brian Conrad(Stanford) who are professional mathematicians and work with many experts themselves have huge doubts.
Not area experts.

[Anonymous No.11529824]

all the weebs invading this thread to defend their dear conman. like clockwork

[Anonymous No.11529837]

>>11529819
>Which part of the theory do Yamashita and Fesenko disagree on?
Look it up.
>Minamide
Arata Minamide (Who I presume you're referring to) is a researcher at Nottingham
>Highly unlikely given the on-going collaborative work between Mochizuki, Hoshi, Fesenko, Minamide, Porowski.
But entirely possible if the whole thing is a fraud.
>Also Saiti. Dupuy, Joshi and Hilado are all expanding on IUT from America.
Fair enough, but the vast plurality still do not accept the proof.
>Stix is likely the only area expert who has publicly offered any sort of refutation.
Except that the vast majority of subject area experts agree that Scholze and Stix's objections pose a (fatal) problem and this is precisely why it's still so controversial.
>Not area experts.
They're in better contact with them than you are which brings me to repeat for the third time: What qualifies you to pontificate? Where did you get your phD and what in?

[Anonymous No.11529855]

>>11529837
>Look it up.
Where?

>Arata Minamide (Who I presume you're referring to) is a researcher at Nottingham
This change is more recent than his work on the theory. Did Fesenko have influence on him prior to moving to Nottingham?

>Fair enough, but the vast plurality still do not accept the proof.
Plurality of non-experts yes, who are unable to point to errors.

>Except that the vast majority of subject area experts agree that Scholze and Stix's objections pose a (fatal) problem and this is precisely why it's still so controversial.
Which area experts?

>They're in better contact with them than you are which brings me to repeat for the third time: What qualifies you to pontificate? Where did you get your phD and what in?
Feel free to dox yourself if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.11529877]

>>11529855
>Where?
Not gonna spoonfeed you sperg.
>This change is more recent than his work on the theory.
Prior to working at Notts he was at Kyoto doing his phD under Mochizuki. So he's another of Mochizuki's group. This means that either Yamashita was out of the loop, in which case he supports Mochizuki blindly (like you) or that after having done a phD under Mochi Minamide works under Fesenko and is unable to see that he's a fraud. All this tells me is that there's no real meaningful consensus even amongst those who've worked closely with Mochizuki.
>Plurality of non-experts yes, who are unable to point to errors.
Plurality of experts who've largely united behind the Stix-Scholze objections.
>Which area experts?
Any number of the attendees of the 2015 Oxford conference. You're welcome to email any number of the mathematical departments of credible Universities in the world.
>Feel free to dox yourself if you'd like.
If you don't have any verifiable credentials why should I take you seriously? The burden of proof is on you to support this claim and yet you can't even claim to be an authority. Are you even a phD in the first place? I don't even think it'd be too specific if you told us where you did your B.Sc and what in.

[Anonymous No.11529891]

The reviewers were so tired of this obscure shit that they just accepted the theory.
It might come back to bite them in a decade or so, but not any time soon.

[Anonymous No.11529900]

>>11529877
>Not gonna spoonfeed you sperg.
Unsurprisingly unsubstantial.

>Prior to working at Notts he was at Kyoto doing his phD under Mochizuki. So he's another of Mochizuki's group. This means that either Yamashita was out of the loop, in which case he supports Mochizuki blindly (like you) or that after having done a phD under Mochi Minamide works under Fesenko and is unable to see that he's a fraud. All this tells me is that there's no real meaningful consensus even amongst those who've worked closely with Mochizuki.
So Fesenko did not have influence on him prior to moving to Nottingham.

>Plurality of experts who've largely united behind the Stix-Scholze objections.
Which experts?

>Any number of the attendees of the 2015 Oxford conference. You're welcome to email any number of the mathematical departments of credible Universities in the world.
Where is their agreement with Scholze/Stix published?

>If you don't have any verifiable credentials why should I take you seriously? The burden of proof is on you to support this claim and yet you can't even claim to be an authority. Are you even a phD in the first place? I don't even think it'd be too specific if you told us where you did your B.Sc and what in.
If you require verifiable credentials to take someone seriously why attempt to discuss anything serious on an anonymous forum? The burden of proof is on the minority who claims a peer-reviewed publication is incorrect without claiming any specific errors. I do have a PhD and I did my B.Sc in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11529913]

>>11529900
>If you require verifiable credentials to take someone seriously why attempt to discuss anything serious on an anonymous forum?
I'm not discussing something serious. I'm laughing at a fraud and his lackies. If you think I'm having a serious discussion with you you're seriously mistaken.
>The burden of proof is on the minority who claims a peer-reviewed publication is incorrect without claiming any specific errors.
>Publishing where you are Chief Editor.
Credible.
>I do have a PhD and I did my B.Sc in mathematics.
Finally a sort of not-really answer. But you won't even give the college, I'm guessing because it's not top-10.

[Anonymous No.11529930]

>>11529913
>I'm not discussing something serious. I'm laughing at a fraud and his lackies. If you think I'm having a serious discussion with you you're seriously mistaken.
So what do you need my credentials for?

>Credible.
Not an argument unless you believe he peer-reviewed it himself, in which case why didn't he just publish it 8 years ago?

>Finally a sort of not-really answer. But you won't even give the college, I'm guessing because it's not top-10.
As previously stated, feel free to dox yourself if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.11529944]

>>11529930
>So what do you need my credentials for?
You apparently want to elevate the discussion from joke to something else. If you want me to take you remotely seriously show out.
>Not an argument
In your mind alone.
>As previously stated
As previously stated I'll continue laughing at a fraud and his lackies and you can continue to autistically itemise every one of the handful of mathematicians that agrees with you while the vast majority of arithmetic geometers treat you like the putzes you are.

[Anonymous No.11529955]

>>11529944
>You apparently want to elevate the discussion from joke to something else. If you want me to take you remotely seriously show out.
As previously stated, feel free to dox yourself if you'd like.

>In your mind alone.
Which of Mochizuki's actions compromise the integrity of the peer review?

>while the vast majority of arithmetic geometers
Non-experts.

[Anonymous No.11529960]

>>11529955
You do you lackey.

[LMC !!6bFXHDKL67m No.11530129]

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://cgi.2chan.net/m/res/113776.htm&usg=ALkJrhhS9d6pF7Jq8zbSog_R9AA8Gkz3bA

https://mainichi.jp/articles/20200403/k00/00m/040/093000c

[Anonymous No.11530245]

>>11529584
Yeah but with the mathematics is today compared to back then is very different so you should give him the benefit of the doubt

[Anonymous No.11530275]

>>11530129
He's a lefty. Uh oh...

[Anonymous No.11530313]

>>11528216
Imagine orbiting a jap mathfag this hard

[Anonymous No.11530316]

>>11530275
Oh fuck get your pol trash comments out of here. Who fucking cares if he's a lefty..

[Anonymous No.11530329]

>>11530316
>ironic remark about some meaningless property
>must be /pol/
I know this is autist haven, but you must be the captain here.

[Anonymous No.11530360]

>>11530316
>Oh fuck get your pol trash comments out of here.
look at the picture he/she replied to you brainlet

[Anonymous No.11530379]

>>11530316
You fucking brainlet. Anon meant he's LEFT-HANDED YOU FUCKING RETARD

[Anonymous No.11530385]

>>11530316
Stop doing politics anon. It has completely melted your brain...

[Anonymous No.11530414]

He needs to translate it into non-sperg language. That's it, then he won't have to write anymore 9 page summaries on criticisms of the theory or have 5 day conferences to sort out exactly what the fuck he's saying. Until then he's obviously trying to hide his failures in the complexity.

[Anonymous No.11530458]

>>11530275
>Uh oh...
Why?

[Anonymous No.11531320]

Oof, USA taking Japan's side over the Germans

[Anonymous No.11531556]

>>11531320
This is maths, you child, it's either right or wrong. There are no sides.

[Anonymous No.11531728]

>>11531320
>really really really
>opinion

[Anonymous No.11531748]

>>11528216

I don't know anything about math beyond multivariate calculus (Engineer here) but I absolutely love this man for showing how full of shit mathematicians can be, and how close it became to philosophy in the sense that people can spout absurdities without anyone being capable of reviewing them.

Godspeed to him.

[Anonymous No.11531809]

why are /sci/ schizos so obsessed with this shit?
it's been 8 years and no one can understand it, top minds took it seriously and still nothing.
It's incomprehensible garbage.
You people probably were all psyched for the EM-drive too.

[Anonymous No.11532023]

>>11531809
>it's been 8 years and no one can understand it, top minds took it seriously and still nothing.
see http://archive.is/vdO7J

[Anonymous No.11532274]

>>11532023
>he is editor of the journal who publishes the work

[Anonymous No.11532311]

>>11532274
>Mathematicians often publish papers in journals where they are editors. As long as the authors recuse themselves from the peer-review process “such a case is not a violation of any rule, and is common”, says Hiraku Nakajima, a mathematician at the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo formerly part of Publications of RIMS’s editorial board. Mehrmann confirms that this would not violate EMS guidelines.

>Kashiwara said that Mochizuki had recused himself from the review process, and had not attended any of the editorial board meetings about the paper. The journal has previously published papers from other members of the journals’ editorial board, he said.

[Anonymous No.11532336]

>>11532311
>review process is the only way an editor and employee can influence the publication process

[Anonymous No.11532343]

>>11532311
>On his blog, the mathematical physicist Peter Woit of Columbia University in New York wrote in December 2017 that the journal’s acceptance would create a situation that is “historically unparalleled in mathematics: a claim by a well-respected journal that they have vetted the proof of an extremely well-known conjecture, while most experts in the field who have looked into this have been unable to understand the proof”.

>But one mathematician who prefers to be quoted anonymously says that editors and referees handling these papers might have been in a nearly impossible situation. “If the best mathematicians spend time trying to work out what’s going on and fail, how can one referee on his own have any chance?”

[Anonymous No.11532353]

>>11532336
There's zero evidence of foul play, take your schizo delusions back to /x/ or /pol/

[Anonymous No.11532358]

>>11532343
>while most experts in the field who have looked into this have been unable to understand the proof
Obviously not the case.

[Anonymous No.11532364]

>>11532353
>absence of evidence is evidence of absence
There is a clear incentive for RIMS to publish his work despite controversies.
>everything I don't agree with is /pol/
Retard.

[Anonymous No.11532372]

>>11532364
>There is a clear incentive for RIMS to publish his work despite controversies.
What's the incentive?

[Anonymous No.11532373]

>>11529575

grothendieck was not a genius and he didn't "invent" anything he was a con artist

[Anonymous No.11532383]

>>11532372
"ourguy"
"we published the proof that eluded mathematicians and the greatest minds for 30 years"

[Anonymous No.11532385]

>>11532383
The blowback that would result from this being pushed through would massively outweigh any of that. And if they just wanted the 'prestige' of publishing it then why wait 8 years?

[Anonymous No.11532387]

>>11532358
Obviously the case.

[Anonymous No.11532388]

>>11528216
More like the Jap Mochizuki failed spectacularly while the white piggu master race do all the real work like usual.

[Anonymous No.11532591]

>>11532387
>Obviously the case.
It was peer reviewed and accepted by experts, while it has been deemed incorrect by non-experts who worked with what they described themselves as a simplified theory.

[Anonymous No.11532607]

>>11532591
>It was peer reviewed and accepted by experts
Peer revievew and accepted by people employed by Kyoto Uni, and publish in Kyoto journal, while everyone else outside deems it incorrect. I don't want to choose sides here, but if you can't see something seems fishy here then I don't know what to say.

[Anonymous No.11532618]

>>11532607
>Peer revievew and accepted by people employed by Kyoto Uni, and publish in Kyoto journal, while everyone else outside deems it incorrect.
The 'everyone else outside' admitted to using a simplified theory, and have not generalized their contentions to the actual theory in his papers.

[Anonymous No.11532633]

Lubos Motl seems to think the proof could be legit and Mochizuki was unfairly dismissed by western scientists:

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/04/mochizukis-proof-gets-officially.html

[Anonymous No.11532988]

You autists know that Mochizuki is half white, right? Just look at his Wikipedia page:
>Shinichi Mochizuki was born to parents Kiichi and Anne Mochizuki.
Look up Anne Mochizuki just to make sure she's not Nisei or anything and you find his grandmother's obituary:
>LEAH P. (nee Edelman), age 93, nurse, teacher and world traveller, March 3, 2005. Beloved wife of the late Nathan Rauch; devoted mother of Anne Rauch Mochizuki of NY and the late Joshua Rauch; loving grandmother of Dr. Shinichi Mochizuki of Kyoto, Japan and Dr. Mia Mochizuki of NY; sister of Ralph Edelman.
If anything, Edelman sounds Jewish to me. Mochizuki is basically pic related's worst nightmare.

[Anonymous No.11533082]

The war is already over and Mochizuki lost.
If he had a proof of abc, by now 8 years later, someone would have written it down in enough detail that the relevant experts could understand and verify it. The matter is resolved.

[Anonymous No.11533090]

>>11533082
>If he had a proof of abc, by now 8 years later, someone would have written it down in enough detail that the relevant experts could understand and verify it.
That's what's happened, it's being published.

[Anonymous No.11533114]

>>11532988
>Edelman sounds Jewish to me
Unlikely. Edelman is German and translate to "nobleman" apparently it is a reasonable indication of his ancestors having some title, which obviously wouldn't be granted to a Jew.

"Rauch" on the other hand (German for smoke) could very well be Jewish, as it is a common trend for Jewish names to be a random German word. Usually you can distinguish Jewish names and ethnic German names by that. Ethnic German names very often feature the a trade "Müller" (miller) "Schmidt" (today morphed to Schmied, meaning smith), while Jewish names do not e.g. Rosental (Valley of roses), Goldstein (Golden stone) and so on.
You can trace this discrepancy back to Jews not being allowed into the trades, causing them to be occupied in things like banking.

[Anonymous͘ No.11533145]

Are we nearing the limit of mathematics ?
Math has become too complicated for the human brain ?

[Anonymous No.11533269]

>>11533145
Nah. I'd still give math another 50 years before that happens.

[Anonymous No.11533461]

[Anonymous No.11533538]

I have in the back of my mind that it was already published in some journal where Mochizuki has influence? Am I just mistaking or is it the second journal now?

[Anonymous No.11533574]

>>11533538
>I have in the back of my mind that it was already published in some journal where Mochizuki has influence?
There was a rumor several years ago that it was going to be published but it was not confirmed.

[Anonymous No.11533596]

>>11530385
>>11530379
>>11530360
>>11530329
>>11530275
Oh fug my bad boyos I'm a complete retard.

[Anonymous No.11533610]

So how long until Mochizuki's followers give up on maintaining the charade?
Will we have to wait for him to die etc?

[Anonymous No.11533632]

>>11533610
>Will we have to wait for him to die etc?
Good luck, unless you're planning on assassination. Japs last forever, you're gonna be waiting for another 50 years.

[Anonymous No.11533689]

>>11529745
Woah there big guy

[Anonymous No.11534022]

>>11529576
>Non-specialist has an opinion on topic.
This isn't really meaningful in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11534463]

>>11529575
Galois wasn't alive long enough to turn into a crank.

[Anonymous No.11535070]

How many people in the world have actually read and understood his proof?

Less than 10? You need to study IUT for like 2 years to even be able to read it

[Anonymous No.11536624]

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13271575
>Editors of the journal of RIMS asked outside experts to peer review the articles for any problems.

>In late 2017, it appeared that the articles would be published, but mathematicians in the West pointed out what they considered inappropriate leaps in logic in a core portion of the articles.

>That led the journal editorial board to continue with their assessment. A number of other outside experts were consulted and it was only in February that Mochizuki’s proof was considered to no longer have any problems.

[Anonymous No.11536654]

>>11535070
a specific corollary in the proof was highlighted but he's dancing around it, whole thing falls apart without that one technical detail but he can't admit it because it's his life's work at this point.

[Anonymous No.11536663]

>>11529790
lmao

[Anonymous No.11536681]

>>11536654
>a specific corollary in the proof was highlighted but he's dancing around it
He's addressed the purported issues with it.

[Anonymous No.11537200]

Why doesn't shinji just rewrite it to be legible?

[Anonymous No.11537215]

>>11537200
nip culture values saving face above all else
if he writes a clear version it he'll have to admit he published 1000 pages of useless trivialities and then kill himself

[Anonymous No.11537250]

No I’m no math fag. But it seems to me this jap did a 600 page proof on abc theory that is to foreign for any other mathematician, so they can’t academically disprove it. That’s pretty based because it doesn’t matter to this jap if it’s correct or not.

[Anonymous No.11537325]

>>11537215
what a hole to dig yourself into. classic tragedy

[Anonymous No.11538176]

>>11529598
>He's a self-proclaimed non-expert.
Ah. The get out clause.