51–60 of 74 posts
If you don't follow how it came mathematicians have so much trouble with some papers: This is part I — http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Inter-universal%20...
>global realified Frobenioid picture
You just made that up.
--Maths Professors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The summary is known. Have you read the abstracts?
Did you even read our article, jsprogrammer? That's what I'm reacting to. It says: >A consensus emerged that the highlight of the workshop was a lecture on 9 December by Kiran Kedlaya, an arithmetic geometer from the University of California, San Diego. He zeroed in on a result from a 2008 paper by Mochizuki that linked the statement of the abc conjecture to another branch of maths called topology. The link was immed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the only pure way to describe existence. That isn't meaningful? Mathematics is a language, first and foremost. To argue otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand its goals, methods, and form. You can draw all the squiggly lines on paper that you want, but it won't mean anything until someone else interpets it. You cannot prove logic that only exists in your own head, because you cannot prove yourself rational.…
Languages do not require human interaction. I do not argue that there is no mathematical language.
I view some of these math researchers like startup founders who are absolutely brilliant technically, but who lack almost all ability to interact with customers, investors, etc. As a solo founder, they will fail. However, if they attract a co-founder who complements their skills, they can be wildly successful. It sounds like Mochizuki would have benefited greatly from such a co-author, in order to truly prove his res…
Math is objective. The proof is either correct or not. Human interaction doesn't matter, except for perhaps marketing the importance of the results. In this case, the history of the problem itself has done the marketing, so any valid solution would be a wild success regardless of how socially eccentric the researcher is. Another recent example of such a mathematician is Grigori Perelman.
The proof can be completely fine, but if no one can understand it then it won't be accepted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Languages do not require human interaction. I do not argue that there is no mathematical language.
Language without human interaction is an undefined operation, like raising zero to the zeroth power, or clapping with one hand.
I just learned about Math 55 and would trade plenty to teach that course. The problem here is that Mochizuki uses too many German Nazi references. Those people had no academic integrity whatsoever; and their works are exclusively stolen, through war crimes and the Holocaust. After you do the right thing, and translate Mochizuki's nomenclature into French and Slavic; the proof is no longer valid, and the problem is ne…
I dont understand what you mean. Can you clarify?
I just learned about Math 55 and would trade plenty to teach that course. The problem here is that Mochizuki uses too many German Nazi references. Those people had no academic integrity whatsoever; and their works are exclusively stolen, through war crimes and the Holocaust. After you do the right thing, and translate Mochizuki's nomenclature into French and Slavic; the proof is no longer valid, and the problem is ne…
However there are no references to him on his "discoveries". Note the lack of a history section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teichm%C3%BCller_space and compare that to the section on Hilbert space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space#History
On the other hand, Felix Hausdorff, who also appears to have worked in the same field (though topology is probably a far broader field than I can understand) has plenty of information readily available. This is conjecture, but the mere lack of solid information on Teichmueller could lend credence to some of what you say.
There is a book about mathematics under the Nazis, which would likely cover a lot of ground http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453494?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
Anyway, bit of a mystery ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is literally only a handful of mathematicians that are qualified and they have gone to Oxford to sort it out - bar mochizuki.
Yes, part of what I was trying to say is why not get that handful of folks together and go to Japan, to the source. Logistics? Ego? Funding? Perhaps a trip is in the cards...
I view some of these math researchers like startup founders who are absolutely brilliant technically, but who lack almost all ability to interact with customers, investors, etc. As a solo founder, they will fail. However, if they attract a co-founder who complements their skills, they can be wildly successful. It sounds like Mochizuki would have benefited greatly from such a co-author, in order to truly prove his res…
Except that, from reading the article, it sounds like he doesn't much care about proving his result to the community. Don't make the mistake of assigning the motives and values of a founder to a late-career tenured mathematician. According to the article, he doesn't care for travel. It's not a stretch to conclude that he doesn't care to communicate his proof to other mathematicians.
I'm guessing he found an argument that was sufficient to convince him (and only him), put it online as a slight concession to his colleagues, and then kicked his feet back.
Surely everyone else would benefit from his having a co-author, but it sounds like he can't be bothered, and doesn't care if no one else understands his ideas.