It has taken nearly four years...

>It has taken nearly four years, but mathematicians are finally starting to comprehend a mammoth proof that could revolutionise our understanding of the deep nature of numbers.

>The 500-page proof was published online by Shinichi Mochizuki of Kyoto University, Japan in 2012 and offers a solution to a longstanding problem known as the ABC conjecture, which explores the fundamental relationships between numbers, addition and multiplication beginning with the simple equation a + b = c.

>Mathematicians were excited by the proof but struggled to get to grips with Mochizuki's "Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory" (IUT), an entirely new realm of mathematics he had developed over decades in order to solve the problem.

This guy basically invented his own realm of mathematics to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem. How does one become a genius like him?

I don't get how come some people can just work for hours on end without procrastinating or burning out.

newscientist.com/article/2099534-mathematicians-finally-starting-to-understand-epic-abc-proof/

Other urls found in this thread:

maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/notesoniut.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=5_vVGPy4-rc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Some kids sell Adderall at the library, I mean, I heard about it

Other people smoke meth and make porn, so, you know, it's up to you

>I don't get how come some people can just work for hours on end without procrastinating or burning out.

1) He got paid good money for every second he was working on it
2) He didn't do it in one go. He wrote it as he felt it come to him

That said, I appreciate his work but I would consider him more of a genius if he could take the relevant bits of his theory that prove ABC and turned them into elementary number theory arguments. My biggest problem with him is that I doubt we need all that fucking bullshit symbol soup to describe ABC. And sure, maybe his larger theory has more to it than just proving ABC but the least he can do is condense the proof of ABC for us little brainlets over here.

Some people are just blessed with a passion or extremely good work ethics. Sucks for the rest, I guess.

>I would consider him more of a genius if he could take the relevant bits of his theory that prove ABC and turned them into elementary number theory arguments.
why don't you say the same for the proof of fermat's last theorem?

some things just aren't that simple

I totally agree.

I'm a non-mathematician, but I live with my grandpa and he publishes math-related papers. He's always talking about how most of what he does just involves finding a simple way to do what other authors did in 20 pages with a computer program or something. I can't imagine a 500 page proof of anything being worthwhile, and I'd be a little annoyed to learn a whole new field of mathematics just to get the proof.

>I can't imagine a 500 page proof of anything being worthwhile
The Weil conjectures took 2000 pages...

I mean that's how most areas work. Someone who is a brilliant thinker makes a breakthrough and explains it the best they can. Then someone who is a brilliant communicator explains it in simple terms, or finds a more elegant proof.

>How does one become a genius like him?

Genes.

Can anyone give me a quick rundown on Inter-universal Teichmüller theory?

Can you be more specific about what your grandpa does? Sounds interesting

maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/notesoniut.pdf

This goes back to the "Elementary =/= Easy" discussion. What do you think is more useful, the complex analysis proof of the Prime Number Theorem or Erdos's proof?

>muh shadows of melting polygons

DUDE

why does modern math always end up being tasteless stoner shit? why is it so unaesthetic?

There are multiple universe in this world.. some 2d some 3d and some even parralell universe. The physic and fundamentals math in one universe might even be different to others, so this guy basically invented a universe where it was trivial to solve the ABC conjecture.

IUT is awesome because it flies in the face of the lifeless and dry representation theory / everything is linear algebra orthodoxy. Langlands is a fucking faggot

>ABC conjecture
Question,
What are the applications.
What are the applications even for the radical of an integer?

He just told you mongoloid, he submits useless math work.

wow rude!

>was trivial
a piece of cake
youtube.com/watch?v=5_vVGPy4-rc

>why don't you say the same for the proof of fermat's last theorem?
The proof was studied in great detail and simplified.

Meanwhile I'm awake all night because I literally cannot get a correct answer on webwork for a fucking Laplace transform of a step function.

I share your exact pain.

Finally... I'm free. If you want I can try to assist.

No promises though.

>Langlands is a faggot
:(

Thanks but I'm doing fine for the moment. Improving my factorization skills made me solve Laplace transformations much better.

Keep it up, bud.

you mean he basically stepped above current mathematics and redefined it such that the problem becomes trivial? just like how we instead of using an X way of solving a problem we can approach it from a different perspective?

but I don't understand something, he changed his perspective, he created a field but he surely had to convert the problem to his field because there would've been no way to solve a problem related to current mathematics in a newly created field that doesn't obey the current rules

isn't converting this problem harder than solving it?

I'm just a brainlet CS student but I'm very curious about this, I wish I had his genetic and financial conditions such that I could dedicate myself to mathematics and deeply understand it

>What are the applications even for the radical of an integer?
an effective proof of abc conjecture gives an extremely short proof of fermat's last theorem

and it's still a fucking monster that makes heavy use of things like Ricci Flow

>i'm a fucking retard but i feel obliged to give my opinion on what is and is not worthwhile in mathematics
leave the thinking to your grandpa, kiddo

that's the poincare conjecture, not fermat's last theorem

my bad, you're right

>i didn't even read the abstract of the paper and i LOVE talking out of my ass: the post

>Achieve this level of understanding of mathematics
>Still don't understand women

rly makes you think.

The proof of the classification of finite simple groups is tens of thousands of pages

You're probably thinking of modular forms

What's hard to understand about women?

...

He's Japanese so he probably jerks off by watching number factorization or something.

Or to anime.

That doesn't answer my question.

Its not work to him, his very complex theories to him are like 2-2=0 to you.

Women are not hard to understand, its just they are irrational and inconsistent so trying to predict how they will act is a waste of time.

the poster doesn't believe that it's worth answering

If you get to know someone well, you can learn how they generally react to things. This applies to both sexes.

That poster is wrong.