61–70 of 82 posts
I asked him more than 10 years ago if he would be interested in a formalisation of the proof, and he politely declined. I guess he was right to decline, my proposal would not have been viable then anyway.
https://kyoko--np-net.translate.goog/2005020901.html?_x_tr_s...
Yeah, in Japan, it's well known that Pi is divisible. https://kyoko--np-net.translate.goog/2005020901.html?_x_tr_s...
What is so special about IUT? They say the theory is "out of this world" but in what sense exactly? Did Mochizuki found a new interesting way to look at some ideas?
It reminds me of Lambda calculus You can express `a + b` or `a * b` in their regular algebraic notation or you can express them as a lambda expressions ADD = λab.(a S)n MUL = λxyz.x(yz) Manipulating these expressions instead of algebra, you can suddenly compute things such as "+ * +" (Plus times plus). That will yield you another expression for sure, but we don't even know what that means. So maybe an analogy would b…
Yes, we do. https://youtu.be/RcVA8Nj6HEo?t=1017
https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1bmp1vk/very_salty_mo... Lot of gems in this thread. My favorite: >>>After Mochizuki said that Scholze-Stix were “profoundly ignorant,” I’m starting to think that this phrase is a weird form of high praise from Mochizuki. >>I feel like the most logical strategy for Mochizuki right now is to diss. Due to the currently prevalent (and not altogether unjustified) attitude towards Mo…
They've surrounded me. Cameras in every corner.
Every move dissected in blogs, forums, peer-reviewed takedowns.
"Cult leader". "Crank". "Outcast".
Good. Let them watch.
I'll solve equations with my right hand... and write names with my left.
I'll take a potato chip... and eat it. [CRUNCH echoing like thunder]
If I praise Joshi, he's tainted—marked as one of mine. Dismissed by association.
But if I drag him... if I bury him in scorn... then they listen.
Then they think, "Maybe he's different. Maybe he's not one of them.""
I'll throw him under the bus... and save him!
And the witness to my alibi... is the mathematical community itself.
[A flicker of Scholze's blog. Stix's preprint. Joshi's strained silence.]
They're all watching.
They won't get it now.
But when the theorems land... when every insult has aged into irony...
...they'll see it was all part of the proof.When the likes of Peter Scholze (fields medal!) and other very high profile mathematicians find (serious) flaws in every posted manuscript about this... I mean, it's pretty clear to me what's going on. The proof just doesn't go through. I think the intrigue is mainly that it's at such a high level that lay mathematicians (like me) have no hope of understanding the debate. It's a situation that lends itself to crazy s…
It's interesting how the debate is transferable to other topics. In theory maths should be able to be broken down to its basic components and be proven to be all true, or if something is false, then the whole thing collapses. But in practice things like this become so complex that it becomes a matter of conviction, influenced by things like ego. Now imagine taking something like biology and vaccines. What happens if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of Lambda calculus You can express `a + b` or `a * b` in their regular algebraic notation or you can express them as a lambda expressions ADD = λab.(a S)n MUL = λxyz.x(yz) Manipulating these expressions instead of algebra, you can suddenly compute things such as "+ * +" (Plus times plus). That will yield you another expression for sure, but we don't even know what that means. So maybe an analogy would b…
> Plus times plus […] but we don't even know what that means Yes, we do. https://youtu.be/RcVA8Nj6HEo?t=1017
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataque_de_nervios Spaniard here, this is nonsense, I'm pretty sure everyone in the world experienced a nervous breakdown/light panic attack.
Spaniard here as well. What we call "ataque de nervios" (a nervous breakdown) in Spain may not match the usage of that term in Puerto Rico, as it is discussed in the Wikipedia article. Just because Puerto Ricans and Spaniards speak dialects of the same language doesn't make our culture all that similar, as you surely know. I would even say there is little in common culturally.
When the likes of Peter Scholze (fields medal!) and other very high profile mathematicians find (serious) flaws in every posted manuscript about this... I mean, it's pretty clear to me what's going on. The proof just doesn't go through. I think the intrigue is mainly that it's at such a high level that lay mathematicians (like me) have no hope of understanding the debate. It's a situation that lends itself to crazy s…
It's interesting how the debate is transferable to other topics. In theory maths should be able to be broken down to its basic components and be proven to be all true, or if something is false, then the whole thing collapses. But in practice things like this become so complex that it becomes a matter of conviction, influenced by things like ego. Now imagine taking something like biology and vaccines. What happens if…
>>But in practice things like this become so complex that it becomes a matter of conviction, influenced by things like ego.
Isn't this like doing a bunch of AND , OR operations?
How does ego become a factor here? Either an expression evaluates to true or false. There are only two outcomes, why is there a confusion here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We went through this over a 100 years ago, math now sits on very solid axioms (look up ZFC), they're not questioning that.
200 years passed by between Newton and Einstein. 100 years is tiny in the evolution of thought and is no basis for shutting the questions down.
Comparing the axioms of math to relativity in physics is just nonsensical. Math is independent of observation, if a proof is formally correct now, it will always be correct under that chosen axiomatic system. Sure, we can play with different axioms (as others commented, it's common to drop the axiom of choice), but that doesn't invalidate the previous work at all.