How Long Would It Take For Me To Understand This?

10 years? 20 years? Never? I am kind of a brainlet, but I think not having a math background might be beneficial.

Other urls found in this thread:

mathoverflow.net/questions/216184/a-road-to-inter-universal-teichmuller-theory
ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm
kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/sokkuri-hausu-link-english.pdf
i.imgur.com/aqzlzL4.gif
mathoverflow.net/questions/35288/undergraduate-roadmap-to-algebraic-geometry
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabelian_geometry
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It sounds like he is a bullshit artist who was formerly a respectable mathematician. Maybe he spent 10 years trying to built a theory, snapped, and just filled in the gaps with BS. The proof of Wiles for FLT was confirmed very quickly. Its been ages and it seems no one has found any 'intermediate' gems from his work. I think it was Kedlaya who said that the theory makes very little reference to anything which could be pinned down to produce a concrete example, bound, or anything else computable/falsifiable.

I thought that around 20 mathematicians have said his ABC proof if correct, which would imply his system is viable to solve other arithmetic conundrums.

Yes, but how many of those are his students and other Japanese people who can't call him out due to cultural deference to authority, and how many of them are people trying to decipher hundreds of pages of his work and singing preemptive adulation so they don't appear as brainlets in case they get proven wrong in public in the scenario that there is some underlying meat?

>The proof of Wiles for FLT was confirmed very quickly

Dude, don't be retarded. If this is your argument then you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Wiles' proof was not an original idea. The Shimura Taniyama conjecture was well known to imply Fermat's Last Theorem and basically, everyone in the world had the same idea: Prove Shimura Taniyama to prove Fermat. It just so happened that Wiles succeeded first. Then when Wiles published there was an army of mathematicians who already had a perfect idea of what the proof was about, they studied the conjecture, odds are half the people in the room he gave his original talk had already tried to do the exact same thing and therefore knew at least half of what Wilrd was going to do. It was proven that Shimura Taniyama implied Fermat 1 decade before Weil published, after all. Everyone was studying the same thing. And the Shimura Taniyama conjecture itself dates back to 1956 so the idea Weil used to prove the theorem had been brewing for half a century. Everyone understood what Wiles did immediately.

On the other hand Mochizuki did not have such a luxury. There had been no amazing breakthrough in the a b c conjecture. So basically he had to do an entire revolution on his own. What Mochizuki did would be equivalent to:

Weil discovering the Shimura Taniyama conjecture, proving it himself immediately, and then proving himself that it implies Fermat.

If Wiles had done that then he would be in the same spot as Mochizuki. No one would have even understood what the fuck was the point of his weird conjecture. Everyone would be asking: What the fuck is this man smoking?

Next time you decide to post something stupid, at least try to have some perspective.

Where did Kedlaya say that?

>I think not having a math background might be beneficial.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahaha
ha ha haaah.... ha.

Why? It is, by many accounts, a whole new paradigm and every professional mathematician has had trouble grasping it initially. I think a black slate might be good. I have some math ability. Also, this is abstract stuff, not complex stuff.

According to Mochizuki himself, the essential prerequisites for the IUTeich papers are:

Semi-graphs of Anabelioids (sections 1 to 6)
The Geometry of Frobenioids I: The General Theory (complete)
The Geometry of Frobenioids II: Poly-Frobenioids (sections 1 to 3)
The Etale Theta Function and its Frobenioid-theoretic Manifestations (complete)
Topics in Absolute Anabelian Geometry I: Generalities (sections 1 and 4)
Topics in Absolute Anabelian Geometry II: Decomposition Groups and Endomorphisms (section 3)
Topics in Absolute Anabelian Geometry III: Global Reconstruction Algorithms (sections 1 to 5)
Arithmetic Elliptic Curves in General Position (complete)
While other sources also recommend:

The Hodge-Arakelov Theory of Elliptic Curves: Global Discretization of Local Hodge Theories
The Galois-Theoretic Kodaira-Spencer Morphism of an Elliptic Curve
A Survey of the Hodge-Arakelov Theory of Elliptic Curves I
A Survey of the Hodge-Arakelov Theory of Elliptic Curves II
Particularly interesting is Fesenko's recent extended remarks on IUT (and learning IUT):

Ivan Fesenko, Arithmetic deformation theory via arithmetic fundamental groups and nonarchimedean theta functions
There's also an introductory paper by Yuichiro Hoshi, but at least for the moment it is avaible in japanese only

Yuichiro Hoshi, Introduction to inter-universal Teichmüller theory
As for the (considerable) gap between Hartshorne and Mochizuki's work, the references on each paper are quite concrete and helpful (see for example the ones on Topics in Absolute Anabelian Geometry I for a good sample).

Poor guy
mathoverflow.net/questions/216184/a-road-to-inter-universal-teichmuller-theory

>this is abstract stuff, not complex stuff.
It's both, actually. By the time you get the prereqs, you will have a math background.