/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9385708]

Mochizuki BTFO by based Scholze

https://galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/?psincomments#comment-4619

[Anonymous No.9385765]

babyface numale westcuck can't comprehend the infinite wisdom of the SAMURAI

[Anonymous No.9385902]

Get this faggot soyboy cuck out of my face. Real Nigga Hours and the only real nigga here my nigga Mochi.

[Anonymous No.9386048]

>>9385765
>>9385902
>t. butthurt slanteyes
Mochizuki is a fraud. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.9386173]

plenty of great mathematicians were doubted by their contemporary peers too

[Anonymous No.9386184]

>>9386173
>Mochizuki
>great
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9386194]

>>9385708
mozuki use linear algebra!
mozuki use linear algebra!

make it do langlands
i do no read not langlands

[Anonymous No.9386198]

Scholze is a brainlet that cannot do number theory if it falls outside of the purview of the Langlands school. The Langlands method is essentially snapping together lego bricks, where as Mochizuki opted to build something from hand.

[Anonymous No.9386203]

>>9386198
Mochizuki's proof is incorrect and useless. Scholze is to Mochizuki like Gromov is to you.

[Anonymous No.9386243]

>>9386203
The Linear Algebra-centric Langlands straight-jacket has been holding back Algebraic Geometry for decades. No one shall expel us from the paradise Mochizuki has created.

[Anonymous No.9386360]

>>9386203
>Mochizuki's proof is incorrect
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.9386365]

>>9386198
>The Langlands method is essentially snapping together lego bricks
How so?

[Anonymous No.9386436]

>>9385708
I think this is the beginning of the end for Mochizuki. He's gone way too far out on a limb and sucked some of his toadies in with him. Even Wiles acknowledged flaws in his original proofs and worked for years to fix them even though he too had invented new kinds of math.

It seems that others are coming out of the woodwork saying that this proof is flawed and instead of seeing any acknowledgment of that, they're just getting called brainlets.

This will be another one of those episodes that """sociologists of science""" use to get funding for meme studies departments. It's embarrassing and I hope that everyone who has been getting their sustenance from Mochizuki's cum for the last few years ends up teaching math to junior high students in the inner city.

[Anonymous No.9386497]

>>9386436
Just to be clear, Scholze did NOT say the proof is flawed or doesn't work. Rather, he's acknowledged that he doesn't understand a major step and nobody in the last five years has explained it to him. The second paragraph you've written is utter /pol/-tier garbage and really shows incredible immaturity and a lack of understanding of the world.

[Anonymous No.9386503]

>>9385765
>>9385902
this
how is someone with babyface and no testosterone supposed to achieve anything in math? he's essentialy a woman, or at least has feminine brain

[Anonymous No.9386613]

>>9386365
>>9386365
There is a point of view that is pervasive throughout modern Arithmetic, Geometry, Number Theory, in that everything can be reduced to Representations, or in other words, Linear Algebra. This is how Wiles' proof was constructed. It is conducted in a very workman-like, brick by brick fashion. Mochizuki's IUT completely throws this out the window because it is inadequate for studying ABC as well as other inequalities that show up in Number Theory. Because most working Number Theorists learned the Langlands approach, they cannot read Mochizuki's papers. They need to cultivate a "beginner's mind" in order to see beyond their limited, professional perspective.

[Anonymous No.9386680]

>>9385708
>balding
>long hair

[Anonymous No.9386706]

>>9386613
That's how every branch has approached mathematics for centuries.

[Anonymous No.9386766]

>>9385708
Poor mochizuki
>Corollary 3.12 in IUT3

"Soon after I posted my essay on Cathy O’Neil’s blog summarizing my impressions about the Oxford IUT workshop in December 2015, I received unsolicited emails from people whom I knew in quite distant parts of the world (one in Europe, one in Asia, and one in North America). Each of them told me that they had worked through the IUT papers on their own and were able to more-or-less understand things up to a specific proof where they had become rather stumped. For each of these people, the proof that had stumped them was for 3.12 in IUT3. It was striking to get three independent unsolicited emails in a matter of days which all zeroed in on that same proof as a point of confusion."

[Anonymous No.9386767]

>>9386706
Representation theory hasn't been around for centuries

[Anonymous No.9386792]

What kind of self hating degenerate you have to be to find number theory in any way compelling?

[Anonymous No.9386808]

>>9386792
>What kind of self hating degenerate you have to be to find number theory in any way compelling?
What's wrong with number theory?

[Anonymous No.9386852]

>>9386767
Reducing problems to linear algebra. And by the way, just because the terminology wasn't around doesn't mean the ideas weren't being applied.

[Anonymous No.9386857]

>>9386808
don't mind the roleplayers

[Anonymous No.9386873]

>>9386497
I think your post shows lack of understanding on two levels.

Whether Mochizuki's proof ends up being correct after fixes is, at this point, a side issue. The fact that people have been sucked in to some kind of thing that the brightest others can't understand is cultlike and will make him a joke in the future if there is even on mistake.

I also think that you have no concept of what sociology of science and related fields will make of this, and if you don't, that's your lack of understanding, not mine.

[Anonymous No.9386902]

>>9386873
>The fact that people have been sucked in to some kind of thing that the brightest others can't understand is cultlike and will make him a joke in the future if there is even on mistake.
There have been mistakes found, but all have been minor and easily fixed without affecting the major result

[Anonymous No.9386918]

>>9386852
>Reducing problems to linear algebra

That is essentially representation theory.

[Anonymous No.9386936]

>>9386918
That's what I'm trying to fucking say.

[Anonymous No.9386938]

>>9386873
You speak like someone with zero involvement in the field, but at the same time present yourself as a pompous expert.

[Anonymous No.9386951]

>>9386938
You don't have to be an expert in any particular field to see how these things go. It's the same in every field. I have zero involvement in the field, but this isn't that different than any other unverified claim in any field being taken as true by people that really want it to.

That you think this is some math-only phenomenon means that you probably need to get off of this tahitian yacht club.

>>9386902
No one really doubts that ABC is true, though. The first person to *prove* it is what counts.

[Anonymous No.9386960]

>>9386902
Maybe, but he has a permanent asterisk next to his name if he publishes in his own journal a flawed proof.

This is no different than Reinhart, Rogoff getting busted by a grad student who found a mistake in their spreadsheet. At the end of the day, there might still be some GDP percentage of debt that empirically slows growth, but they will always be known as the guys who had a mistake in their spreadsheet... or the result that was published about neutrinos exceeding c a few years back. Pick any field.

In math, just compare how discreet Wiles was. He kept it a secret he was even working on a proof for many years, or Perelman who dissed the whole system for misallocating credit. Mochizuki and his buttboys want the credit BEFORE it's even understood by the experts in the field.

This has nothing to do with understanding math. It has to do with

[Anonymous No.9386975]

>>9386960
>Mochizuki and his buttboys want the credit BEFORE it's even understood by the experts in the field.
What's the evidence of this being about wanting credit?

[Anonymous No.9386987]

>>9386951
>he's not in the same field
that's okay, I mean...
>he's not even in math
holy shit fuck off and keep your shitty opinions to yourself. idiot.

[Anonymous No.9386992]

>>9386960
The only butt boys are the retards who refuse to think out side of their lenses with respect to religiously following orthodox Mathematics.

People like Scholze can never compare with Mochi.

[Anonymous No.9386995]

I don't even know what you are debating at this point. You are probably both biologists or computer scientists.

[Anonymous No.9386999]

>>9386951
If you were in the field, you'd know that Mochizuki's proof is not being taken as correct without more evidence. Hell, just read the myriad skeptical blog posts by leading arithmetic geometers, filled with comments from their peers.

[Anonymous No.9387205]

>>9386999
>Hell, just read the myriad skeptical blog posts by leading arithmetic geometers
post the urls

[Anonymous No.9387232]

>>9387205
in the op m8

[Anonymous No.9387340]

>>9387232
>one post by one smug looking blogger
>myriad
welp, I guess that settles it then, the math "community" has spoken...

[Anonymous No.9387372]

>>9387340
Read the comments. Those people are not random nobodies.

[Anonymous No.9387376]

>>9387372
Well a few of them aren't.

[Anonymous No.9387377]

>>9387205
>Scholze isn’t “in the field”
The absolute state of redditor Mochizukifags

[Anonymous No.9387388]

Why did anyone bother with this jap's papers anyway?

[Anonymous No.9387395]

>>9387388
Racism.

Everyone though, hey, nips are good at math right?

[Anonymous No.9387423]

>>9387388
Because he's made huge advances in anabelian geometry in the past.

[Anonymous No.9387424]

>>9387388
Because his previous work was good.

[Anonymous No.9387432]

>>9387388
>PhD Princeton
>advisor medal fields
>works on advance grothendieck ideas
>full Autismo

[Anonymous No.9387494]

So, what happens when Mochizuki realizes he has brought great shame on his famiry?

[Anonymous No.9387667]

>>9387494
Sudoku

[Anonymous No.9387692]

>>9385708
>tfw former research supervisor is in the comment section

[Anonymous No.9387697]

>>9387692
Then according to this anon >>9387205 you’re “not in the field” and can’t post here

[Anonymous No.9387704]

>>9387697
>Then according to this anon >>9387205 you’re “not in the field” and can’t post here
Did you quote the wrong post? That post just says 'post the urls'

[Anonymous No.9387898]

What's the % chance that the next update to his IUT papers includes details for the proof of Corollary 3.12?

[Anonymous No.9387935]

How many of you have even attempted to read any of the papers, much less 3.12?

[Anonymous No.9387959]

>>9386173
Many incorrect mathmeticians were too

[Anonymous No.9387960]

>>9387935
Fuck off with this shit. Have you? Can you confirm it? Explain it then, faggot.

[Anonymous No.9387965]

>>9387935
i'm just here for the memes

t.engineer

[Anonymous No.9387968]

>>9387960
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9387970]

>>9387960
Ive read some of it. The best way I can describe it is that its some kind of recursive function, with all the "universes" hes talking about observing each other.

[Anonymous No.9387978]

>>9387970
shut the fuck up. "reading them" means very different things to mathematicians than to popsci roleplayers

>>9387968
f a g

[Anonymous No.9387981]

[Anonymous No.9388030]

>>9387978
>shut the fuck up. "reading them" means very different things to mathematicians than to popsci roleplayers
cringe

[Anonymous No.9388064]

Quick /sci/, what's an "alien arithmetic holomorphic structure"?

[Anonymous No.9388174]

>>9386360
His proof isnt a proof, its filled with various QED statements. There are points where he arbitrarily defines terms and then immediately QEDs his way out of it to the next chapter.

[Anonymous No.9388179]

>>9387898
0

[Anonymous No.9388219]

[Anonymous No.9388412]

>>9388064
>Quick /sci/, what's an "alien arithmetic holomorphic structure"?
>[certain aspects of] the arithmetic holomorphic structure on one vertical line of the log-theta-lattice in terms that may be understood relative to an alien arithmetic holomorphic structure on another vertical line — i.e., separated from the first vertical line by horizontal arrows — of the log-theta-lattice

[Anonymous No.9388413]

>>9388174
>His proof isnt a proof, its filled with various QED statements.
Which QED statement insufficient to be considered a proof?

[Anonymous No.9388425]

Discount Grothendieck BTFO

[Anonymous No.9388727]

>>9387372
>are not random nobodies
like Meme Tao:
"I do not have the expertise to have an informed first-hand opinion on Mochizuki’s work, but"

[Anonymous No.9388730]

>>9388727
He's got a point mochisucker

[Anonymous No.9388750]

>>9388727
No, like Brian Conrad.

[Anonymous No.9388778]

>>9388750
Check the Remark 3.12.2 (ii) of newest version of IUT-III, December 14, 2017.

[Anonymous No.9388835]

>>9388750
>Brian Conrad
>random nobody
Yeah okay

[Anonymous No.9388837]

>>9388835
I was implying the opposite.

[Anonymous No.9388938]

>>9388837
My bad, this thread just has me in the mood for arguing

[Anonymous No.9388993]

another "i cant understand something because i am retard so must be wrong" thread

[Anonymous No.9389105]

>>9388993
>it’s a pseuds pretending to be smarter on the basis of an unfalsifiable criterion episode

[Anonymous No.9389119]

>>9388993
>Peter Scholze
>retard

wewlad

[Anonymous No.9389227]

>>9388412
I asked for someone to explain that word salad, I could have copy-pasted myself.

[Anonymous No.9389237]

>>9388778
>Remark 3.12.2 (ii) of newest version of IUT-III, December 14, 2017.
Scholze BTFO by based Mochizuki

[Anonymous No.9389241]

>>9388993
The way people here just want to posture as intelligent is stupid. Let's just completely ignore that the point of a proof is to convince others *why* a result is true.

[Anonymous No.9389242]

>>9387965
Same lmao

[Anonymous No.9389249]

>>9389227
>I asked for someone to explain that word salad, I could have copy-pasted myself.
Have you tried looking up the definition of "arithmetic holomorphic structure" and "log-theta-lattice"?

[Anonymous No.9389275]

>Implying Femail Omochizuki-sama won't solve it.

[Anonymous No.9389280]

>>9389249
You are the worst kind of person. He's asking for an explanation of what the definition is trying to say, not a definition. Definitions can be opaque, and telling someone who wants further clarification to go look at the definition is stupid.

[Anonymous No.9389284]

>>9389280
Show me on the doll where he touched you.

[Anonymous No.9389287]

>>9389249
I have, if I hadn't I woudn't be asking here. It only references me to the papers. If someone were to explain to me what an alien arithmetic holomorphic structure were to me in this thread, it would be the first explanation on the internet.

[Anonymous No.9389312]

>>9388727
>"I do not have the expertise to have an informed first-hand opinion on Mochizuki’s work, but here's what happened in other similar situations that I'm knowledgeable about"
Yes, what's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.9389343]

>>9389280
>You are the worst kind of person. He's asking for an explanation of what the definition is trying to say, not a definition. Definitions can be opaque, and telling someone who wants further clarification to go look at the definition is stupid.
An arithmetic holomorphic structure is alien to another arithmetic holomorphic structure if there's a horizontal arrow connecting them in the lattice, what could possibly be unclear in what the definition is trying to say?

[Anonymous No.9389358]

Scholze BTFO by based Fesenko

https://www facebook com/ivan.fesenko.37/posts/1128469910617882

Originally, I sent the following questions to Peter Scholze in relation to his post somewhere on the internet about IUT. He responded with a short email, failing to answer any of the main points.
In fact, some of these questions are addressed to many mathematicians.

Dear Peter,

in relation to your post
https://galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/
can you answer several of my questions?

1 – Do you consider yourself an expert on IUT? I have not yet met an expert in IUT who complains about mistakes in it!

2 - Do you know other people who you call “experts” (in IUT) and who were not involved in the referee process or are not in the group of people who attended the workshops on IUT and gave talks there, or students of such people?

You also mention people “the immediate vicinity of Mochizuki” in the sense that only them can follow IUT. I would like to emphasize that there are several people, including me, who are not in this “vicinity” and who acknowledge the full validity of the IUT papers.

3 – You write about IUT-I-II: “very little seems to happen in those two papers (to me)”. Sorry, but this is quite incorrect to state!
First, IUT-I-II is very substantially based on deep previous results in the TAAG-III and ET papers, in the specific situation of the data in IUT. Secondly, the key new deep thing is how IUT-I-II is stated, it is stated in such a way as to make proofs of various resutls there almost obvious from the definitions. It is highly non-trivial to arrive at the way IUT-I-II is stated.

4 – I wrote a short text about basic aspects of mathematical responsibility at my previous facebook post: https://www facebook com/ivan.fesenko.37.
Do you have strong objections against any of its points?

[Anonymous No.9389360]

>>9389358
5 – One point I made in my post is the (informal) duty of research active mathematicians working in areas not far from the area of a new breakthrough work to study it, provided they are already in the stage where they are relatively free from such burdens, and especially if they are in the prime of their mathematical life, which may or may not be related to be of age 30-50.

I wonder if you fully appreciate the fact that the generation of arithmetic geometers of age, say, between 30 and 50, has almost entirely failed to do that,
in relation to IUT?

Many representatives of this generation were invited to attend our workshops on IUT (including you), but very few came. Many responded to my invitation emails that they "were not interested" or "did not have time" or "busy with family" to study IUT, but now I see that some of them are very active in writing something "bad"about IUT on the internet.

The whole process of how the IUT were processed in the period of 5 years 2012-2017 is unique. The author of IUT was so open to all comments he received and applied, together with several other people, so much effort to accommodate anyone's concern, including your question in your only email you sent to him. You declined to communicate further with the author of the theory after he had invited you to do that. And yet, you consider appropriate to continue to say "bad" things about IUT at some conferences and blogs, despite your positive reaction to my previous emails where I explained that this is not the right way to follow.

I also wonder if you appreciate the fact that
this failure of this generation of mathematicians
does greatly contribute to the current bizarre situation in relation to IUT?

Do you appreciate how serious is this, how much it could harm the future of number theory?

[Anonymous No.9389362]

>>9389343
Lol

[Anonymous No.9389363]

>>9389360
6 – I confirm that it takes not more than 2 years to study IUT in good depth for good young researchers (PhD and postdoc level). I know several such people.

If so, it would be strange to doubt that every research active professor in arithmetic geometry can study IUT in the space of time not exceeding 2 years. There are already 5 years since the first version of IUT papers was made public, and one could have spread hours of its study within these 5 years, for example, going on sabbatical leave.

As you certainly know, many leading representatives of older generations took a much more active role in the study of IUT by attending our workshops or communicating with experts on IUT. Why is it in your opinion that the older generation of researchers is more responsive towards the study of IUT than people in the generation 30-50?

7 – You have not discussed with or passed the observation you make about the proof of Cor. 3.12 to the author of the theory. You have not discussed this issue of Cor. 3.12 with anyone in the group of people who attended the workshops on IUT and gave talks there, or students of such people. The way you state your problem with Cor. 3.12 is too vague, similarly to great vagueness of your only email to the author of the theory. If you had talked with experts on IUT, you would have been aware that several issues of Cor. 3.12 were the subject of extensive discussions between Shinichi Mochizuki and several researchers who study IUT, and also it was discussed several times at our seminar on IUT in Nottingham in 2017. Note that Remark 3.12.2 (ii) of the current version of IUT-III is one of outputs of the discussions… there is an ongoing new 80 pages survey text which includes many more details.

[Anonymous No.9389374]

>>9389358
>>9389360
>>9389363
This is the face of religious dogmatism. Drink it in folks.

[Anonymous No.9389378]

>>9389358
That guy totally wrote his own wikipedia page. It is way too detailed.

[Anonymous No.9389386]

>>9389358
>>9389360
>>9389363
It's funny that he's actually defending this shit when Yamamoto was shit talking him and called him a liar. Apparently Fesenko doesn't understand IUT either so I don't know on what grounds he can say "It can be learned in two years or less" or that he can attest to the validity of the papers. Secondly even if there were workshops of IUT, when the fucking founder of the theory doesn't show up cause "muh japan" than why should anyone else even bother showing up?

[Anonymous No.9389397]

>>9389386
Wasn't Yamamoto, it was Go Yamashita, my mistake

[Anonymous No.9389400]

>>9389358
>get off my lawn, Scholze
This is dripping with the jealousy that older failed academics have for prodigies like Scholze.

[Anonymous No.9389406]

>>9389358
>1 – Do you consider yourself an expert on IUT? I have not yet met an expert in IUT who complains about mistakes in it!
This is just more circular argumentation from Mochifags trying to justify the fact that their just front runners hoping to be the ones who said, in effect, I liked them on their first album.

I'm not an expert in astrology, but I don't have to be to know that it's bullshit. Likewise, you shouldn't have to be an expert in one narrow field to understand how it's relevant.

So, basically, Mochizuki belongs on the philosophy department is the shorter version of this.

[Anonymous No.9389410]

>>9389400
2018 and medal fields goes to Peter Scholze.
BTFO fesenko

[Anonymous No.9389412]

>>9389410
It's very likely.

[Anonymous No.9389414]

>>9389386
>Secondly even if there were workshops of IUT, when the fucking founder of the theory doesn't show up cause "muh japan" than why should anyone else even bother showing up?
He showed up via Skype.

[Anonymous No.9389416]

>>9389386
>Secondly even if there were workshops of IUT, when the fucking founder of the theory doesn't show up cause "muh japan" than why should anyone else even bother showing up?

This. Mochizuki is an ass.

[Anonymous No.9389420]

>>9389414
>via Skype.
>via Skype
>via Skype.
>via Skype
>via Skype.
>via Skype
The absolute city of Mochifags

[Anonymous No.9389423]

>the absolute state of the arithmetic geometry community

[Anonymous No.9389432]

>>9389358
Dear fesenko
Just write full explain of Corollary 3.12 in IUT3, please don't be mean.

[Anonymous No.9389434]

>>9389414
>>9389416
When even the social recluse Perelman (who despises being in the public eye so much he refused someone recording his lectures) can stomach going around the country to explain his proof, I think Mochizuki can leave Japan for a couple of days so he can interact with people and explain his ideas, not an hour long skype call. Anyone who's been to a conference knows that the actual lectures are only half the event, afterwards there are lots of discussions, especially at dinner, where people trade their thoughts and try better prying deeper into the ideas presented and where more questions are brought out, hell if we really just wanted to know what someone worked on we could've just read their papers and be done with it, but that's not just the purpose of a conference, and mochizuki failed to those things by just showing up on skype for a bit and then peacing out, seriously, what were the rest of the attendees supposed to afterwards, try and piece things together while mochizuki jerks off to hentai back in japan?

[Anonymous No.9389435]

>>9389432
Dude the entire paper is the explanation bro just reread 250 pages of definitions until you understand

[Anonymous No.9389491]

>>9389416
>Mochizuki is an ass.
maybe he is just in a phase of severe autism and depression and social interaction would even depress him more because he has to operate in an already bad state which is just stress and only deteriorates the depression.

[Anonymous No.9389497]

>>9389491
He's had five years to do or say something plus he's always been described as a sociable man, and again, Perelman actually went out and gave lectures, and he's definitely more socially deficient and autistic than Mochizuki

[Anonymous No.9389625]

>>9389432
read
>>9388778

[Anonymous No.9389652]

>>9389374
>>9389378
>>9389386
>>9389397
>>9389400
>>9389406
>>9389410
>>9389412
>>9389432
>>9389420
>>9389423
>>9389416
>>9389434
>>9389435
>>9389491
>>9389497
>samefagging this hard

[Anonymous No.9389656]

>>9389358
>First, IUT-I-II is very substantially based on deep previous results in the TAAG-III and ET papers, in the specific situation of the data in IUT. Secondly, the key new deep thing is how IUT-I-II is stated, it is stated in such a way as to make proofs of various resutls there almost obvious from the definitions. It is highly non-trivial to arrive at the way IUT-I-II is stated.
This basically says nothing, he's a hack.

[Anonymous No.9389676]

>>9389652

[Anonymous No.9389682]

>>9389656
>This basically says nothing
to you

[Anonymous No.9389732]

is math drama kino?

[Anonymous No.9389755]

>>9389732
I want /tv/ to leave

[Anonymous No.9389784]

>>9389732
Math drama is full autistic screeching contest, 2 years old baby had better social skill that math community,mathematics must avoid drama.

[Anonymous No.9389792]

>>9389784
Yeah, we've actually had a bit too much math drama as of late
>Perelman stuff
>Fiasco in symplectic geometry
>Piper and her super duper thin rectangles

[Anonymous No.9389809]

>>9389682
>Scholze complains that all the stuff before 3.12 is useless to proving 3.12
>Hack responds by saying it's not useless because it's stated in order to prove things in an obvious way
This is a pointless statement.

[Anonymous No.9389834]

>>9389792
>mfw IUTT relies on super duper thin white male rectangles

[Anonymous No.9389841]

>>9389792
>Fiasco in symplectic geometry
Explain?

[Anonymous No.9389843]

>>9389834
>mfw I realize that those rectangles are made super thin because they were folded 1000 times
>integrals are just lots of katanas side by side
>must literally have the mind of a samurai to IUT

[Anonymous No.9389844]

>>9389841
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-fight-to-fix-symplectic-geometry-20170209/

[Anonymous No.9389845]

>>9389834
You're not entirely wrong, I think. It involves Hodge Theaters and algebraic cycles are involved in that conjecture.

[Anonymous No.9389888]

>>9389844
>In the 1990s the most promising strategy for counting fixed points on symplectic manifolds came from Kenji Fukaya, who was at Kyoto University at the time, and his collaborator, Kaoru Ono.
lotta drama queens in kyoto

[Anonymous No.9389899]

>>9389888
That second bomb really fucked Japan up

[Anonymous No.9389959]

>>9389888
>Asians are good at math
We’ve been memed

[Anonymous No.9389981]

>>9389358
>>9389360
>>9389363
Fesenko spent so much time trying to understand IUT he can't back off now.

[Anonymous No.9389994]

>>9389981
>understand IUT
According to someone else who claims to understand IUT and is close colleagues with mochizuki at kyoto Fesenko doesn't really understand the subject.
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gokun/DOCUMENTS/abc_ver6.pdf
Go to page 6. Also
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gokun/footnote.html

[Anonymous No.9390000]

>>9389981
>>9389994
And considering that Mochizuki and Go are in the same dept one wonders how Fesenko is viewed by the "experts"

[Anonymous No.9390065]

>>9390000
>And considering that Mochizuki and Go are in the same dept one wonders how Fesenko is viewed by the "experts"
Most likely viewed positively by Mochizuki

[Anonymous No.9390067]

>>9389888
Because Asians are a bunch of pretenders who only care about social status, not about discovering true, beautiful math.

[Anonymous No.9390079]

>>9390065
Then why's Yamashita being such a cunt about all this? Why does he claim Fesenko is an "academic harasser" and is only pretending to understand the theory. Who in their right fucking mind tries to have beef over a theory barely anyone understands

[Anonymous No.9390124]

>>9390067
Nice delusions, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9390129]

>>9390079
Love triangle.

[Anonymous No.9390132]

>>9390129
>mfw part of this drama that spans several nations and is a hot topic in the math community is because one nip is pissed his senpai likes some foreigner more
Exactly like one of my Chinese cartoons

[Anonymous No.9390171]

i'm looking forward to more drama

[Anonymous No.9390210]

>>9387372
Those comments are not blog posts, though.

[Anonymous No.9390213]

>>9388030
He's correct, though.

[H No.9390214]

>>9388064
The ring/scheme structure of a Θ±ell NF-Hodge theater related to a given Θ±ell NF-Hodge theater by
means of a non-ring/scheme-theoretic horizontal arrow of the log-theta-lattice, duh!

[Anonymous No.9390236]

>>9390214
But where are the diagrams anon, you can't expect me to do IUT without diagrams!

[Anonymous No.9390259]

>>9388778
>Check the Remark 3.12.2 (ii) of newest version of IUT-III, December 14, 2017.
post yfw when you compare log volumes of q-pilot and theta-pilot objects and then the proof of abc (mochi's theorem) finally clicks

[Anonymous No.9390314]

>>9389676
>>9389652

[Anonymous No.9390447]

>>9388219
I hope he closes that comment later on

[Anonymous No.9390489]

>>9390314
Lol

[Anonymous No.9390676]

bump

[Anonymous No.9390677]

>>9390676
What for?

[Anonymous No.9390802]

>>9385708
The irony in this is that Mochizuki's written about 10x the amount of explanatory notes/remarks that you'd usually find in publications

[Anonymous No.9390848]

>>9390802
>quantity=quality

[Anonymous No.9390855]

>>9390848
>>quantity=quality
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.9390899]

>>9389378
>That guy totally wrote his own wikipedia page. It is way too detailed.
Seems unlikely, there's a large number of editors in the page's edit history

[Anonymous No.9390943]

>>9389652

[Anonymous No.9391045]

And this, boys and girls is why I bailed out of research mathematics as soon as I could.

I believe we have reached a point, where it becomes insanely hard to separate good work from utter bullshit. Pure math is now so far removed from anything that there is no more practical way to check these claims. And the worst part is that it barely matters. Giving a proof for the ABC conjecutre won't greatly help improve humanity in the grand scheme of things.

IUTT is currently the most prominent, but by far not the only example of this happening. You can see lots of extremely smart people waste their time in fields and problems so utterly irrelevant. Why? Just because some big shot had a wild conjecture and people are out to get the fame.

Back in the day mathematical problems were posed from physics. Their solutions was meaningful and could actually be physically observed. Sure, some devleopments in mathematics preceeded their applications by decades, but right now the situation is absurd. We should cut back on the abstract bullshit and maybe be a little more conservative. The current state of pure mathematical research is pure cancer.

This is just my brainlet opinion, but deep down you know there is something wrong.

[Anonymous No.9391067]

>>9391045
>Back in the day mathematical problems were posed from physics

Can't believe you are centuries old.

[Anonymous No.9391098]

>>9391045
>I believe we have reached a point, where it becomes insanely hard to separate good work from utter bullshit
It has been like this for as long as mathematics has been a serious professional discipline.
I'm sure your university has a section in the basement which is just shelf after shelf after shelf after shelf of ancient math journals that nobody ever takes off the shelf. Almost all of that stuff has been forgotten because even back then nobody cared.
You cannot tell in advance what will end up being a meaningful development and what is a dead-end artificial problem and the only way to circumvent that is just to throw as much shit as you can at the wall until something sticks.

[Anonymous No.9391117]

>>9388413

those who don't proof the conclusion for the reader

[Anonymous No.9391122]

>>9389994
thanks

[Anonymous No.9391173]

>>9391045
Utterly false. We have one example of papers that we can't follow because the author is putting zero effort into exposition or explanation. We can easily tell valuable papers because they give methods that even without full strength solve outside problems.

[Anonymous No.9391178]

>>9391045
http://thatsmathematics.com/mathgen/

[Anonymous No.9391251]

>>9391173
>We have one example of papers that we can't follow
There are more than that. IUTT is just the most prominent unresolved example. Some proofs are so convoluted that they are infeasible to check even for active researchers. Some examples:

- Classification of simple groups
- Feit-Thompson-Theorem
- Four colour theorem (extensive use of computers)

I may be a logical purist, because I consider all proofs that I cannot personally check myself as not complete. My philosophy is somewhat close to https://mathbabe.org/2012/08/06/what-is-a-proof/..

I realize that by using this definition of a proof I am imposing hard limits on its maximum complexity (i.e. the ability of the human mind to understand it). However my point is, that everything which requires more complex proofs is basically irrelevant fknowledge.
>We can easily tell valuable papers because they give methods that even without full strength solve outside problems.
If I look through recent publications in journals and the arxiv, I do not get that impression. I feel current pure math research falls into two categories:

a) Highly specialized research, which may even be peer reviewed, but has a global audience of maybe 5 or 6 people. Often the results extremely obscure or minor, which will probably lead to it being forgotten sooner or later.

b) Extremely complicated and convoluted work on very popular topics, but which is almost impossible to work through. As examples I consider IUTT. Another example would be P=NP, there are so many proofs pubslished for and against ist, it is mind boggling.

[Anonymous No.9391380]

>>9391251
These are not things that are an issue, though. At least, no one takes issue. Okay, so the classification of finite single groups is long and complicated, but so what? Nobody doubts its correctness or usefulness.

[Anonymous No.9391411]

>>9391380
>Okay, so the classification of finite single groups is long and complicated, but so what? Nobody doubts its correctness or usefulness.
This is not really true. Most people you ask would probably not suspect that it's truly "wrong" in the sense of missing groups but there are almost certainly errors in it somewhere. It's too long not to have errors.

>>9391251
There is a big gap between the theorems you're describing and Mochizuki's proof. Everything you've listed is only infeasible to check by hand because of prohibitive size, not because of opacity.
It's not a modular proof where everybody understands a chunk, nor is it composed of such well-understood methods that we can check them with computer logic.
This current scenario where the only thing holding it back is the fact that it's just too bizarre for anybody to (demonstrably) understand is very unique as far as things I've heard of.

[Anonymous No.9391434]

>>9391045
you were never able to get anywhere near research mathematics, brainlet. you aren't fooling anyone

[Anonymous No.9391479]

>>9391173
>We have one example of papers that we can't follow because the author is putting zero effort into exposition or explanation
Which papers?

[Anonymous No.9391485]

>>9391251
>Another example would be P=NP, there are so many proofs pubslished for and against ist, it is mind boggling.
There are no such proofs

[Anonymous No.9391544]

>>9391251
No serious proof attempt has come forward for P vs NP. The classification of simple finite groups is correct, reviewer and finished.

[Anonymous No.9391562]

>>9391544
>being this new
/sci/ proved P=/=NP months ago

[Anonymous No.9392082]

>>9385765
>>9391045
>>9391251

What's the potential for someone to prove something short and already understood using IUTT?

Wouldn't that at least present something understandable and make the concept less of a meme?

[Anonymous No.9392115]

>>9391485
>>9391544
http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
And they all fall apart at some point or another. Even the dude from Bonn, who came up with something a few months back admitted it doesn't work.

It getting to the point that people are actually getting tired of checking fake proofs of it, which further diminishes the chance of an actual proof appearing and being recognized as such.

>>9391544
>The classification of simple finite groups is correct, reviewer and finished.
I am not doubting the correctness, but the method. The amount of people who actually understand the proof or even parts of it is pretty low. Meanwhile most group theorists just accept the result as a fact and keep building upon it. In my eyes, this is very problematic and careless.

>>9392082
It would definitely help. That is one of the points Tao has made in OP's link. The fact this has not happened for years is not a good sign. For the moment we can just wait and see.

I must admit I am less interested in the actual ABC conjecture than how the mathematical community tries to deal with the current situation. My guess is people will continue to mine the papers for useful shit, but eventually give up. Then it will become like one of the examples in >>9391251. Most people will accept the result and say "Mochizukis's proof probably checks out" and then move on.

[Anonymous No.9392256]

>>9392115
You can't expect every group theorist to go through that behemoth with a fine tooth comb. You know that every mathematician takes things on faith in pretty much everything they do? There's just not time to get a detailed, nuanced understanding of every result you might ever need.

[Anonymous No.9392269]

>>9392256
>the absolute city of pure mathematics

[Anonymous No.9392483]

>>9385708
who is this semen demon?

[Anonymous No.9392597]

>>9392115
Your post deserves only the same reply.

No serious proof attempt has come forward for P vs NP. The classification of simple finite groups is correct, reviewed and finished.

[Anonymous No.9392765]

One day you poor dumb autistic fucks will cease all your autistic screeching and come to understand that the glory of the ONE TRUE GOD of mathematics.

Norman J Wilderberger.

ALL HAIL THE WILD BURGER!

Upon that day of Revelation opaque lame dicks like Mochi will commit honorable sushi to save his humiliated family from eternal shame.

Then we can all get on with the real business of understanding what numbers actually are and thus purge the Universe of absurdities such as pi.

DESU VAULTING!

[Anonymous No.9392783]

>>9392765
Honestly modern mathematics has become a mess, probably just better to restart the damn thing from wildbergerian principles

[Anonymous No.9392816]

>>9392783
>I'm not well versed in modern mathematics, but I'm able to condemn the field

[Anonymous No.9392848]

>>9392816

BE SILENT! WHORE!

The age of the Wild Burger approaches!

[Anonymous No.9394007]

[Anonymous No.9394020]

>>9394007
K.y.s.

[Anonymous No.9395033]

>>9391045
>brainlet who doesn't know shit about math and hasn't done meaningful research in his life tries to invalidate one of the richest and most important fields of research of all of modernity
lol ok faggot

[Anonymous No.9395036]

>>9395033
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9395039]

>>9395036
>homophobia
why the faggotry?

[Anonymous No.9395076]

>>9395039
>faggotry
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9395082]

>>9395036
>>9395076
Get the fuck out of this board and kill yourself you special snowflake.

[Anonymous No.9395088]

>>9395082
>Get the fuck out of this board and kill yourself you special snowflake.
Are you okay?

[Anonymous No.9395104]

>>9395082
>taking the bait this hard

[Anonymous No.9396397]

>>9395082
Why the snowflakephobia?

[Anonymous No.9397975]

>>9385708
bump

[Anonymous No.9398004]

>>9395036
>>9395076
>>9395082
I agree, neck your fucking self,

[Anonymous No.9398021]

>>9389792
>>Piper and her super duper thin rectangles
This sounds great, can I have a link?

[Anonymous No.9398028]

>>9398021
http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf
page 117

[Anonymous No.9398144]

So, what's the progress on Corollary 3.12 from IUTT III?

[Anonymous No.9398169]

>>9398144
None, obviously. Scholze has been trying to contact mathematicians for years now about this thing and no one responded productively. "Mathematician" Schinichi is just a meme.

[Anonymous No.9398173]

>>9398169
But he updated the paper 2 weeks ago with additional remarks on that corollary. I'm asking what happened since then.

[Anonymous No.9399670]

bemp

[Anonymous No.9399758]

>>9389844
That was actually a really nice article

[Anonymous No.9399900]

>>9391178
This is fantastic thanks for posting.

[Anonymous No.9399910]

Based God with his first book.

Check out my new book!
The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

[Anonymous No.9399918]

>>9399910
>vixra
kek

[Anonymous No.9399940]

>>9399918
90+% of the people who recognize the meme "viXra" recognize it because of the smear campaign against my research which is published there.

Check out my new book:
The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

[Anonymous No.9399942]

>>9389410
Probably. He has to be a favorite. But he isn't getting a Field's Medal for that blog comment. People say he is highly productive in a number of fields (I wouldn't know).

[Anonymous No.9399945]

>>9399940
Delusions of grandeur

[Anonymous No.9399955]

>>9399910
>284 pages

This guy is legit crazy.

[Anonymous No.9401685]

>>9399910
>paricles
Didn't know Pericles had anything to do with Physics

[Anonymous No.9401688]

>>9399940
>my new book
Lad, you are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.9401722]

Ah the Divine Geometry poster strikes again.
This is what /sci/ was made for.

[Anonymous No.9401730]

>>9391562
Wasn't there a guy who claimed he solved subset sum problem in polynomial time? He even had code and paper linked here.

[Anonymous No.9402034]

>>9399940
>implying this holds a candle to my new paper
Pic related

[Anonymous No.9402187]

>>9387965
You just described this whole thread

[Anonymous No.9402861]

>>9399910

Oh, you're still here. Didn't you apply for a math phd this autumn?