/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7262500]

Who's the biggest badass in today's mathematics, and why is it Shinichi Mochizuki?

[Anonymous No.7262518]

Because he's a yokozuna of math.

[Anonymous No.7262558]

>>7262518
I'd like to believe you just made it on the spot

[Anonymous No.7262564]

I wonder how many times i've seen that exact same picture of him on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.7262569]

>>7262564
there are literally just two pictures of him on the internet. this is the other one

[Anonymous No.7262573]

>>7262569
There was this one too. I see why he prefers the chin-up pic. The guy doesn't smile well.

[Anonymous No.7262590]

>>7262573
from the miniature I thought it's the same as in OP

[Anonymous No.7262613]

>>7262569
>there are literally just two pictures of him on the internet
False. The Web is filled with rare Mochizukis.

Here, have a free sample.

[Anonymous No.7262617]

>>7262613
guess I'm just retarded. thank you kind anon

[Anonymous No.7262638]

found few more:
http://www-math.ias.tokushima-u.ac.jp/~ohbuchi/AG2000/index_30.html

[Anonymous No.7262646]

Who is this guy? Why is he the badass in math?

[somali anon No.7262649]

>>7262500
One of the best mathematicians we have today. He's theory could potentially verify Andrew Wiles Fermats last proof and could also be applicable to muh String Theory, and other deeper Quantum Field Theories.

[Anonymous No.7262654]

>>7262638
Can't believe I just downloaded a .zip file of a japanese mathematician's personal photos

[Anonymous No.7262657]

>>7262654
w2c those glasses

[Anonymous No.7262658]

>>7262649
I'm not sure how this could have applications in string theory and QFT.
I remember reading something about string with p-adic boundary and then strings over general rings, whatever that meant, but it was not seen as important or meaningful.

[Anonymous No.7262662]

>>7262646
http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
a short summary i guess

[Anonymous No.7262715]

>>7262658
>string with p-adic boundary
Is THAT what string theory is like these days? Christ.

[Anonymous No.7262732]

So could anyone on /sci/ even begin to explain what ayy lmao teichmuller theory is all about? Does someone still have that cartoon intro that Mochizuki posted somewhere as an explanation?

[Anonymous No.7262743]

http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/anpi-kakunin-jouhou.html
He updated his safety confirmation yesterday.

Rare Mochizuki do not save.

[somali anon No.7262758]

>>7262658
May had read it somewhere, probably I'm speculating anyways.

Well one yet understands the mathematics behind it yet. It's going quite some time to understand.

[Anonymous No.7262759]

>>7262743
>As of 14 May 2015, 18:00: I'm doing fine.
reminds me of pic related

[Anonymous No.7262798]

>>7262654
You downloaded it because you want a tonne of rare mochi's.

[Anonymous No.7263040]

find Shinichi

[Anonymous No.7263108]

>>7263040
Found him!

[Anonymous No.7263111]

>>7263040
Those two dudes are like "lol we're standing behind Mochizuki kekeke"

[Anonymous No.7263112]

[Anonymous No.7263122]

>>7263040
And Mochi is like "aw c'mon guys mathematics is a serious business" but he has to suppress his grin as well.

[Anonymous No.7263147]

>tfw it will take at least 15 years of concentrated study to comprehend IUTEICH

[Anonymous No.7263524]

>>7262558
>made it on the spot
how_new_r_u.jpeg.png.tiff

[Anonymous No.7263619]

>>7262500
>>7262569
>>7262613
>>7262638
>>7262654
>>7262657
Homeboy looks like he belongs in Madame Tussauds

[Anonymous No.7263631]

I think we all know how's the greatest mathematican of our time.

[Anonymous No.7263672]

>>7263040
Morimoto on the right end

[Anonymous No.7264597]

bampu~

[Anonymous No.7264614]

Is it happening? Is Mochi the Pepe of /sci/? Time to search for rare Mochis

[Anonymous No.7264900]

>>7264614
Rare Mochi's on the horoizon. I have a folder started.

[Anonymous No.7264967]

>>7263524
I wouldn't know, I started browsing /sci/ the day before

[Anonymous No.7264973]

>>7263631
certainly the cutest

[Anonymous No.7265933]

>>7262500
yes

[Anonymous No.7267172]

>discussing great mathematicians of today
>nobody posts this alpha

[Anonymous No.7267205]

>>7267172
>Great Mathematician
>Writes basic shit about a quantum harmonic oscillator with no math higher than linear algebra

[Anonymous No.7267215]

>>7267172
Who is this fagote

[Anonymous No.7267220]

>>7262500
>ctrl+f
>Tao
>0 results

/sci/ confirmed for not knowing anything about maths.

[Anonymous No.7267222]

>>7267172
I could teach a monkey to write down Barnett's trash and I could teach a monkey to prove that the David Letterman series converges - something he couldnt do.

[Anonymous No.7267230]

>>7262649
Fermats last theorem has been proven, faggot

[Anonymous No.7267573]

>>7267220
>proves one big theorem in number theory
>greatest mathematician
Topkek.

[Anonymous No.7267730]

>>7267172
>that poor badly drawn sigma
I can hear its screams

[Anonymous No.7267743]

>>7267220
Just because you're a child prodigy doesn't make you a great mathematician. Tao is a problem-solver, not an innovator. Consider Grothendieck's words:

>"I've had the chance...to meet quite a number of people, both among my "elders" and among young people in my general age group, who were much more brilliant, much more "gifted" than I was. I admired the facility with which they picked up, as if at play, new ideas, juggling them as if familiar with them from the cradle - while for myself I felt clumsy. even oafish, wandering painfully up a arduous track, like a dumb ox faced with an amorphous mountain of things that I had to learn ( so I was assured), things I felt incapable of understanding the essentials or following through to the end. Indeed, there was little about me that identified the kind of bright student who wins at prestigious competitions or assimilates, almost by sleight of hand, the most forbidding subjects."

[Anonymous No.7267755]

>muh tao is the greatest mathematician

I don't get why /sci/ and Reddit are so crazy about this guy. Tao is obviously brilliant, but he's just a good problem solver and not an innovator. Most mathematicians are problem-solvers; they're very focused on specific topics within their specialized fields, only daring to move boulders aside from the road that's already been laid out. They tend to be very good at it, but there's something about this approach that seems sterile and somehow pointless. On the other hand, the great mathematicians are the ones who blaze new trails and find problems where none had existed before. In fifty years, a broad range of mathematicians will be familiar with the principles of IUTT and pushing forward the frontiers that it reveals; not many people will be talking about Tao or his work.

[Anonymous No.7267797]

>>7267230
abc conjecture is a deeper result that implies FLT and other results conerning diophanitine equations noob, don't be trivializing IUTeich

[Anonymous No.7267826]

>be humanitiesfag
>constantly encounter the outer fringes of math in a hundred different branches of philosophy, from analytics to metaphysics
>be amazed by the mystic potential of math being the language of reality itself
>be slightly in awe of STEMfags and assume they tap into this majesty through hard work, and humanitiesfags like me are missing out
>start learning math
>it's tough as fuck
>get to the point where i can just barely understand higher order college level stuff
>eagerly start talking to esteemed, visionary, world-famous mathematicians at my university
>mfw i realize they are all complete, intuitive materialists in their outlook
>mfw they don't grasp an iota of the mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher math
>mfw they don't even really understand what the concreteness of mathematical laws implies, and spend most of their time playing at meaningless quantitative number puzzles
>mfw even professional scientists are childlike retards who are genuinely content with puerile, reductionist accounts of the nature of reality
>mfw the vast majority of high level STEM people are ignorant of other branches of their own field, let alone other fields or disciplines altogether
>mfw even the luminaries of STEM are the biggest reservoir of literally autistic toy collectors in the world
>mfw trying to experience an ounce of majesty is impossible around these eternally plebeian tolstoyan foxes
>mfw the vast majority are just average dumb normalfags aside from their single hyper-focused academic specialty
>mfw they don't read books (like, at all)
>mfw phds in theoretical physics have the exact same political opinions as your dumbass uncle who works at the olive garden
>mfw it is actually staggering how dumb they are in every single respect other than knowing one specific kind of math really well
>mfw disillusioned
>mfw realizing after all that work that math isn't even the language of reality but a closed and self-referential puzzlebox for autistic fucking faggots

[Anonymous No.7267854]

>>7267826

[Anonymous No.7267866]

>>7267826
>mfw intelligent STEM people see the world for what it is instead of the imaginary "mystical" world I fantasize about

Correct.

[Anonymous No.7267870]

>>7262613
>Who's the biggest badass in today's mathematics, and why is it Shinichi Mochizuki?
>>>


So is there a market for "Rare Mochizukis" ?

[Anonymous No.7267875]

>>7262743
>Rare Mochizuki do not save

so there is a market ?
perhaps he has a distant cousin of Pepe ?

[Anonymous No.7267883]

>>7267755

problem solvers complete the difficult proofs, and verify them

great mathematicians imagine the proofs and complete some of them

what do you call that brackish zone where they both play ?

[Anonymous No.7267887]

>>7267826

the box is closed if your mind isn't open to all data and inspiration

sadly, this happens too often

remember what a POS bobby fischer was away from a chessboard ?

[Anonymous No.7268076]

>>7267230

shitforbrains, he said 'verify'
the proof has been verified by an abstruse proof
if Mochi's ABC proof is ever fully understood (even more abstruse), then Fermat falls out like an apple onto Newton's head

[Anonymous No.7268116]

>>7268076
proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof is proof

[Anonymous No.7268130]

>>7268116

repetition does not increase the message
the message of the ABC proof is that its the truth of its basic relation simplifies investigation and proof related fields.
it is a matter of utility, as well as profundity.

if you feel compelled to respond, please watch Earnest Scared Stupid first, note the cure for trolls is given...and it is not a bad one. simple as ABC.

[Anonymous No.7268890]

>>7267826
>>be amazed by the mystic potential of math being the language of reality itself

[Anonymous No.7268896]

>>7267866
Destroyed.

[Anonymous No.7268899]

>>7267220

Tao use a result by Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim.

I can't understand Tao's paper, the math is beyond me. I curious as to how important is the contribution by Goldston and Pintz Yildirim in Tao's proof. Can Tao prove the theorem without GPY results, or can he prove the theorem even if he don't know about GPY.

[Anonymous No.7268919]

>>7267826

>scientists aren't impressed by my new-age hippie philosophy bullshit

[Anonymous No.7268920]

It's still Edward Witten, and he isn't even a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.7268924]

>>7268920
He is though, maybe not in practice. Witten's pretty based.

[Anonymous No.7268928]

I agree Witten.