New notes from the /sc/i king

[Anonymous No.7105256]

http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Invitation%20to%20Inter-universal%20Teichmuller%20Theory%20(Lecture%20Note%20Version).pdf

[Anonymous No.7105403]

thx for the update.
This appears to be the most comprehensible invitation today, but of course I still understand shit.
I'm not a fan of elliptic curves, but I see myself learning about stacks in the future. Does anybody here have some more intuition about them?

[Anonymous No.7105413]

>>7105403
Holy fuck those notes are unreadable as shit. Are you seriously telling me this is more comprehensible than anything else he wrote?

[Anonymous No.7105418]

>>7105413
To me, yes, as the vocabulary refers to more common core objects an triggers some associations.

<span class="math">\zeta(s) = 2^s\pi^{s-1}\ \sin\left(\frac{\pi s}{2}\right)\ \Gamma(1-s)\ \zeta(1-s)[/spoiler] ?

Well in any case, regarding the paper, for starters: Does somebody know how to understand his <span class="math">a\in a[/spoiler]?
I've read before that it's called "inter-universal" Teichmüller theory because he doesn't fix an underlying set universe for his study, but moved between them.
On Math overflow I read that all of this relates to non-wellfounded set theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well-founded_set_theory
and so "a in a" shouldn't scare one.

Thoughts: I'm thinking of topoi of sheaves, C^X, over a topological space X. Those are like set universes, and (geometric) morphisms (functors between topoi) are induced by continuous transformations Y->X Grothendiecks 6, etc.. Also, Mr. Samurais theories work is related to his anabelian stuff.
I've no idea if this might be how switching between universes should be interpreted, but that's also my association and I was triggered by reading about stack in it, which I guess are nicer sheaves.

[newt !!NLjz0OTzgIO No.7105431]

Professor Naruto and Jacob Barnet should work together.

[Anonymous No.7105440]

>>7105256
"Inter-universal Teichmuller theory."

Okay, what math do I need to know in order to comprehend this? All I know right now is abstract algebra and basic topology and differential geometry.

[Anonymous No.7105456]

>>7105418
I'm not even talking about the concepts he's trying to explain....just the wording on that first page alone where he's talking about N h = h => h = 0 is so atrocious that I had to read it three times over. And wtf is up with all the random underlining.

[Anonymous No.7105491]

>>7105440
Algebraic geometry will be the main ingredient.
Then p-adic analysis complex differential geometry, number theory and some set theory...

>>7105456
Yeah it sucks that it's so hard to read.
Okay, so let's get thought it and try to understand what the objects are at least.

First on page 2, the second point of the first example, there are some suggestions:
he gives the example of a number h being a part of number C.
His h fits into his C because the there is an N>=2 so that h·N is something just as big or even smaller than N.
I.e. h·N<=C.
Now he say C=0 means h=0 in arithmetic, but he suggest to us to take a defining equation in this case
N·h=h. This leads to the same result, but expresses h is part of h itself.
I guess in his inter-universal world the relation is allowed and so we get new nicer spaces.

Then on the same page he gets into algebraic geometry. Fix a prime number l.
He says we consider an elliptic curve E, i.e. basically a solution space (with emphasis on space), and says for his object of interest there is a short exact sequence
0 --> mu --> E --> Z/lZ --> 0
So, stretching concepts a bit, the space E is more or less the Cartesian product of the simple arithmetic object Z/lZ and the "multiplicative subspace".
He then goes on to state the problem: For the spaces he'd need to solve his elliptic curve stuff, that relation doesn't hold.
Given what he said so far, I conclude he came up with the inter-universal theory to enable just that, introduce new nice spaces so he have split the E's apart.

Then there is q-parameter I don't know. He says q to the power of l is the other q.
Well, I don't know anything about it, but I heard the word "Frobenioid" in another thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenioid
and without knowing much about modular arithmetic, I know there are those maps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenius_endomorphism
which are about mapping inside Z_p to the prime power p.
...

[Anonymous No.7105499]

>>7105403

This does not read like a serious math paper. This reads like something from a kook website, complete with nonsense identities presented as mysterious insights (<span class="math"> \infty ~> 0![/spoiler]? Give me a break.)

[Anonymous No.7105503]

>>7105499

Should be <span class="math">\infty[/spoiler] ~> 0!, my bad.

[Anonymous No.7105513]

>>7105499
If you're referring to pic related, that's an arrow.

And yeah, if he wouldn't be a renowned mathematician already, people wouldn't do seminars of those odd looking papers.

[Anonymous No.7105524]

>>7105513

You don't get to analytically continue 0! to infinity. It's already rigorously defined as 1; it would be like saying the analytic continuation of sin(x) at 0 is 5- it just makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.7105612]

>>7105524
it's the continuation from infinity, not to infinity, and not to the function 1 or 0, but of a function to the value 0.
And not that it matters, but "!" is an exclamation mark here, kek.

[Anonymous No.7105622]

>>7105256
What happened to that guy's proof of something that was taking a while to check?

[Anonymous No.7105691]

>>7105622
He proved the abc conjecture. it is verified by other japanese mathematicians. rest of the world is too retarded to understand it

[Anonymous No.7105713]

>>7105418

I'm no algebraist or chink, but it seems what he's saying is this:

Proof of Goldbach conjecture comes down to proving that Spziro inequality.

this tautological solution, I don't really understand, but the gist of it seems to be if you think of an automorphism as instead of going between the *same* group/ring/field, as being between distinct copies of that group/ring/field in different "universes" where group/ring/field theory operates differently, then you can prove the Spziro inequality.

Inter-Universal Teichmuller theory is about doing these transformations *between* these universes.

Like I say, I'm not an expert in the field, just a keen physicist; but I've been trying to decipher some thread of that paper.

I agree with most people here that it's written like the lecture notes of a cokehead with ADHD. All those abbreviations all over the place, yet he defines the Jacobi identity twice? Could've been a bit more considerately redrafted.

[Anonymous No.7105715]

>>7105418
>>7105418

I'm no algebraist or chink, but it seems what he's saying is this:

Proof of Goldbach conjecture comes down to proving that Spziro inequality.

this tautological solution, I don't really understand, but the gist of it seems to be if you think of an automorphism as instead of going between the *same* group/ring/field, as being between distinct copies of that group/ring/field in different "universes" where group/ring/field theory operates differently, then you can prove the Spziro inequality.

Inter-Universal Teichmuller theory is about doing these transformations *between* these universes.

Like I say, I'm not an expert in the field, just a keen physicist; but I've been trying to decipher some thread of that paper.

I agree with most people here that it's written like the lecture notes of a cokehead with ADHD. All those abbreviations all over the place, yet he defines the Jacobi identity twice? Could've been a bit more considerately redrafted.

[Anonymous No.7105720]

>>7105713

Dr. Naruto isn't a chink, you fucking racist /pol/ scum.

He's a gook, get it right.

[Anonymous No.7105750]

>>7105715
>>7105418
>>7105418
>>7105715
>>7105720


I'm no algebraist or moot, but it seems what he's saying is this:

Proof of Goldbach conjecture comes down to proving that Spziro inequality.

this tautological solution, I don't really understand, but the gist of it seems to be if you think of an automorphism as instead of going between the *same* group/ring/field, as being between distinct copies of that group/ring/field in different "universes" where group/ring/field theory operates differently, then you can prove the Spziro inequality.

Inter-Universal Teichmuller theory is about doing these transformations *between* these universes.

Like I say, I'm an expert in the field, just a homoerotic physicist; but I've been trying to decipher some thread of that paper.

I agree with most people here that it's written like the lecture notes of a methhead with ADHD. All those abbreviations all over the place, yet he defines the Barnett identity twice? Could've been a bit more considerately redrafted.

[Anonymous No.7105793]

[Anonymous No.7105810]

>>7105793

>>7105715
>>7105418
>>7105418
>>7105715
>>7105720


I'm algebraist and moot, but it seems what he's saying is this:

Proof of Barnett conjecture comes down to proving that PvsNP inequality.

this tautological solution, I don't really understand, but the gist of it seems to be if you think of an automorphism as instead of going between the *different* group/ring/field, as being between distinct copies of homology in different "universes" where group/ring/field theory operates differently, then you can prove PvsNP inequality.

Inter-Universal Teichmuller theory is about doing these transformations *between* these universes.

Like I say, I'm an expert in the field, just a homoerotic physicist; but I've been trying to decipher some thread of that paper.

I agree with most people here that it's written like the lecture notes of a methhead with schizophrenia. All those abbreviations all over the place, yet he defines the Barnett identity twice? Could've been a bit more considerately dated.

[Anonymous No.7105812]

Why doesn't he just give lectures on it to other mathematicians in similar fields?

[Anonymous No.7105815]

>>7105812
Because he is correct and everyone else is dumb. Not his fault.

[Anonymous No.7105828]

>>7105691
>believing anything Japanese scientists say
>believing they wouldn't just kiss his ass and have any idea what it is about

Academia in Japan is a joke. Math at it's core is a social phenomenon and if you are too shitty to participate in a language or manner that convinces others then you are shit.

This guy is a hack

[Anonymous No.7105862]

>>7105793
I've seen a lot of /sci/ memes, but this is a timeless piece. Truly remarkable.

Someone needs to send it to Mochizooka himself.

[Anonymous No.7105928]

>>7105713
Thanks for the response.

Yeah I also noticed the double Jacobi statement.

The transition of structure via automorphism seems cool.
Why would the proof by tautological, then?
Also, do you know if my idea about the universe translation as induced by the automorphism correpsonds to some sort of induced functor?

PS you can easily delete post (if they are not too old) by checking them and the in the bottom right

[Anonymous No.7105974]

>>7105928
cont.
Connecting some more dots: Are maybe the frobenius morphisms those automorphism and the Frobenoids

[Anonymous No.7106026]

>>7105974
tbh someone from sci should make a blog with a title UITT for dummies

[Anonymous No.7106102]

>>7105828
What is the highest level math you've taken? I'm betting calculus.

[Anonymous No.7107316]

>>7105862
seconded! we need to send it to him.
Now who knows this guy for real?

[Anonymous No.7107331]

>>7107316
Why don't you just send him an e-mail?

[Anonymous No.7107605]

[Anonymous No.7109221]

/sci/ im scared

[Anonymous No.7109579]

>>7106026
listen to him please, we need a blog like this, i'd love to know more about this theory.

[Anonymous No.7110080]

>>7105256
Listen Mr. Shinichi, I don't wanna being rude but you HAVE TO stop making those threads. Nobody understand that shit, and never will. But you keep postin that every two weeks...

[Anonymous No.7110092]

>>7110080
but i love these threads. i'm just a BSC in physics and i will probably never understand that shit but it's interesting.

[Anonymous No.7110155]

>>7110092
Shinichi Mochizuki is /sci/'s best meme, and /sci/ is the reason he's so well known!

[Anonymous No.7110211]

>>7109579
>>7110092
You guys claim you want to know about it, but you don't really want to invest anything.
If you really care, learn about schemes and then, in some months, come back and report about what you learned and teach others.
It's just math, if you work with it for some time, you'll understand it - also, it gives new ideas. Especially if you're into a mathematical subject like physics, knowing more math can never be bad. Witten is hailed a genius of this day, and a part of why he was so successful in his respective community is because he kept up with algebraic topology.
You don't have to understand Narutos theory - it's know to be hard. But don't say you want to know about it and not even learn the available basics of the tangible subject that motivates his work.

[Anonymous No.7110218]

>>7110211
>implying i have time for this.

[Anonymous No.7110278]

>>7110211
>learn about schemes and then, in some months, come back and report about what you learned

Yeah. Except it would more likely take 1-2 years.

[Anonymous No.7110298]

>>7110278
To truly understand Grothendieck's insight, motivation, and grand machinery of scheme and the abstraction of sheaf cohomology would take about the time to a PhD.