Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory

...

No. A good amount of specially defined terms only helps. IUTeich looks like it was deliberately made to look like alchemy, though. Lingo and notations are insane.

...

russians are such faggots

Salty Serb posing as Russian brainlet btfo.

Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.

Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

>been 5 years
>still not taught to primary schoolers in third world countries that fell for the hard=good education meme

I just realised Ivan Fesenko looks just like Mochizuki.

Coincidence? I think not.

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

Ivan Fesenko:

"interuniversal Teichmüller theory [31], which might also be called arithmetic deformation theory"

This just shows how unnecessarily cryptic this shit is.

"Arithmetic deformation theory" alone tells you a hundredfold more than "Interuniversal Teichmüller theory".

look up prosopagnosia

This isn't /pol/, summer child. Fuck off.

>"Arithmetic deformation theory" alone tells you a hundredfold more than "Interuniversal Teichmüller theory".
does it really? deformation theory already has meaning in algebraic geometry which I don't think is related to this, and teichmuller theory already has meaning which does relate to this, and all you have to add in is understanding of what he means by inter-universal, which he explains right at the start of the first IUT paper...

Simple terms are often reused for different meanings in different fields/subfields. I prefer the names to be intuitive. As long as the term is precisely defined, it should be fine.

>As long as the term is precisely defined, it should be fine.
what's the precise definition of arithmetic deformation?

Geez dont blow a casket

The hell if I know, maybe it's defined somewhere in the paper I linked or his other publications?

i don't see one, i guess the 'deformation' seems to refer to the range of data in the theta-link. i figured when you said 'As long as the term is precisely defined, it should be fine.' that you were saying this was a reason to use the term arithmetic deformation theory instead of IUT

Nah, I haven't studied the papers in detail at all. I just meant it as a general rule of thumb. Either way the name change is some kind of progress. It attempts to consider the audience, and puts the semantics in terms of something they already know.

What I'm looking for from Mochizuki is a short explanation of the main points of the theory in terms of what even the general public would understand. There was that Integral analogy paper he put put, but honestly, that did not much sense to me either. Definitely not something you can read over a few days and instantly get some insight.

What I'm looking for is short, simply-worded conclusions the other mathematicians like Ivan Fesenko and Taylor Dupuy are releasing.

Like:
"There's an implied connection between the addition and multiplication operators"

"UIT does not directly prove ABC, but instead proves Szpiro's conjecture and Vojta's conjecture, which in turn imply ABC"

Even the "Panoramic overview" paper which was supposed to water it all down ended up cryptic as hell.

Well, I'm not an expert in this field, so my opinion might not matter much, but the real experts seem to be saying pretty much the same.

In usual algebraic geometry it would probably just be a deformation functor over an arithmetic base.

>Discussing with Mochizuki abut CM-fields and Shimura curves.
This is giving me chills.
>tfw this will never be you.

Which branch of mathematics is this, even?

arithmetic geometry

that guy probably has a long road to hoe

Seriously what is this, I can't even even.

glasses, two eyes, hair, mouth, nose, yes, they both share these features, but if you look closely, you can see that the guy on the right has one ear more so I'm not convinced

>Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory

Try to type this Pic in [math]\LaTeX[/math]

I'm almost sure that he is nuts and just messing up with the math community

He is acclaimed for his previous results in this field, that's why people are making a big deal out of this.

Those lemmas are trivial, falling right out of the definition of entaglement swapping.

Dumbing down is lossy. That's why it's called "dumbing down".
If you can't get it in the original, you can't get it. 'Simplified' versions are the most idiotic thing imaginable when it comes to any theory. The only reason they are a thing is because they let morons pretend they understand something they clearly do not.

Have you never seen a category theory paper before? Diagrams galore, because they simplify the notation. If you want everything written down using algebraic syntax/formulae you're in the wrong neighbourhood. You're also asking for more than you can chew. You'd just end up with giant strings of symbols that are hard to parse.

Learning a dumbed-down version of something is the best start on a path to a deeper understanding of it.

I somehow doubt that.

please stop posting

>open babbys first mochizuki to page 3
>he uses multiplicative notation for repeated monoid operations rather than exponential notation
>close babbys first mochizuki

maybe some other time

...

>"Arithmetic deformation theory" alone tells you a hundredfold more than "Interuniversal Teichmüller theory".
Really? So IUT is just maths meeting hydraulics?

>but it looks like people still can't understand it well enough to verify it?
BBC has covered IUT several times and in one article it was mentioned that a few handfuls of mathematicians have now understood IUT but, strangely, they are unable to communicate their understanding to the rest. It was compared to "the killing joke".

Look, you're being taught the dumbest version of the argument now cause you can't quite grasp it.

>BBC has covered IUT several times and in one article it was mentioned that a few handfuls of mathematicians have now understood IUT but, strangely, they are unable to communicate their understanding to the rest. It was compared to "the killing joke".
to far gone. trapped in mochizuki land

Got a link?

Explain the reference. I don't read Batman comics.

youtu.be/WwbnvkMRPKM

>He didn't understand it completely in addition to memorizing the entire theory on his first scan through Mochizuki's work.

Found the brainlet.

>One mathgen paper fools three reviewers
>One mathgen professor fools a whole community
And this is why we shouldn't laugh at liberal arts. Rhetoric, literature etc. teaches you how to communicate your thoughts to a broad audience, if we would actually teach maths students that communication is at least as important as clear notation and valid proofs, then we wouldn't have the problem that even experts can't understand SURVEY papers of current research

I can't wait for Mochi to get his IUTT papers published in a Japanese journal so I can taste all the salty tears of Western academics and Veeky Forums brainlets.

I agree with this. There is no way the general public cannot get even the slightest "dumbed down" grasp of what IUTech is about.

Hell, there's no way people with just a B.Sc. in pure mathematics can glean anything of value about IUTech.

can get**

>born and raised in USA
>educated in USA
turns out some nip supremacist geometer. someone explain this to me

>Hell, there's no way people with just a B.Sc. in pure mathematics can glean anything of value about IUTech.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head but I doubt this is the first mathematical theory that's taken at least 5 years to trickle down into the mainstream. I'll try to find an example.

He was in Japan until he was five according to wiki, but I get your point. His adherence to culture is somehow admirable.

>I can't think of anything off the top of my head but I doubt this is the first mathematical theory that's taken at least 5 years to trickle down into the mainstream. I'll try to find an example.
I'm thinking Galois fits here (died in 1832):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory#Aftermath
>Galois' theory was notoriously difficult for his contemporaries to understand, especially to the level where they could expand on it. For example, in his 1846 commentary, Liouville completely missed the group-theoretic core of Galois' method.[7] Joseph Alfred Serret who attended some of Liouville's talks, included Galois theory in his 1866 (third edition) of his textbook Cours d'algèbre supérieure. Serret's pupil, Camille Jordan had an even better understanding reflected in his 1870 book Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques. Outside France Galois theory remained more obscure for a longer period. In Britain, Cayley failed to grasp its depth and popular British algebra textbooks didn't even mention Galois theory until well after the turn of the century. In Germany, Kronecker's writings focused more on Abel's result. Dedekind wrote little about Galois theory, but lectured on it at Göttingen in 1858, showing a very good understanding.[8] Eugen Netto's books of the 1880s, based on Jordan's Traité, made Galois theory accessible to a wider German and American audience as did Heinrich Martin Weber's highly influential 1895 algebra textbook.[9]

>what is the internet