What's the hottest topic on Mathematics this days, friends?

abc conjecture
riemann hype

>all these shitposts

i'm not entirely sure, but i'd be willing to bet algebraic geometry is what all the cool kids are doing

Harnack inequalities...

get it? Because they model heat-like PDEs?

that prime numbers thing

Any announcement from this guy? Did he really solve ABC conjecture?

You mean the Riemann hypothesis or the Zhang-Proof-Thing, which says that there are infinitely many primes that are at max 70000000 apart?

its much lower than 7000000

Stochastic calculus.

sauce?

polymath 8a and 8b

What the fuck is going on here??!?!?!?!?!

Already proven by Grigory Perelman.

no he proved Barnett's Identity

owels

d/dx ( f(x) g(x) ) = f'(x) g(x) + f(x) g'(x) |Integrate both sides
f(x) g(x) = Integrate[f'(x) g(x), x] + Integrate[f(x) g'(x), x]

Integrate[f(x) g'(x), x] = f(x) g(x) - Integrate[f'(x) g(x), x]

P = NP

Proving this will forever change the future.

I expect P != NP

I expect P = NP but with some catches that make it harder to utilise

This!!!

The best environment for doing derived algebraic geometry is in (∞,1)-categories and -topoi, so really homotopy theory is a great language for doing algebraic geometry. This brings us to motivic geometry and all that jazz. So, one could say in that vein that homotopy theory, algebraic geometry, spectra, Eckmann-Hilton related stuff, and QFT are all at the forefront of algebraic geometry. These are also very active fields!

There was recently a major conference dedicated to digging into it, and things are looking really good. Another conference is coming this winter to further the whole thing, and we should have a verdict within the next year, if not sooner.

Why is it not written as [math]\mathrm{P} \subsetneq \mathrm{NP}\,?[/math] This whole equal sign thing is what confuses the normies and cranks im pretty sure

>a major conference

name of conference please

>things are looking really good

give me the crude, bullet point version of why

>within the next year, if not sooner

where does that time frame come from? why not two years or three years?

The basic question is whether or not the two sets are precisely equal.

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

Is there a quality video explaining this problem? Thanks.

Here.

maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/files/kyoto.iut.html

youtu.be/YX40hbAHx3s

Is it of good quality? I'm a computer engineer who needs to send it to a mathematician friend of mine.

It's a great video. It's not a technical video, but it talks about the relevant topics well and in depth.

What's your problem with wikipedia?

Oh, and, I estimated under a year because a MathOverflow post regarding this conference ended up informing me that some of the major obstacles in the proof being true (including some vital inequality) ended up being certainly true, and there was a lot of optimism going on between all of this algebraic geometry experts.

nature.com/news/monumental-proof-to-torment-mathematicians-for-years-to-come-1.20342

Still, Kedlaya says that the more he delves into the proof, the longer he thinks it will take to reach a consensus on whether it is correct. He used to think that the issue would be resolved perhaps by 2017. “Now I'm thinking at least three years from now.”

I see, thank you!