Mochizuki BTFO by based Scholze

Mochizuki BTFO by based Scholze

galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/?psincomments#comment-4619

Other urls found in this thread:

www
galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

babyface numale westcuck can't comprehend the infinite wisdom of the SAMURAI

Get this faggot soyboy cuck out of my face. Real Nigga Hours and the only real nigga here my nigga Mochi.

>t. butthurt slanteyes
Mochizuki is a fraud. Deal with it.

plenty of great mathematicians were doubted by their contemporary peers too

>Mochizuki
>great
t. brainlet

mozuki use linear algebra!
mozuki use linear algebra!

make it do langlands
i do no read not langlands

Scholze is a brainlet that cannot do number theory if it falls outside of the purview of the Langlands school. The Langlands method is essentially snapping together lego bricks, where as Mochizuki opted to build something from hand.

Mochizuki's proof is incorrect and useless. Scholze is to Mochizuki like Gromov is to you.

The Linear Algebra-centric Langlands straight-jacket has been holding back Algebraic Geometry for decades. No one shall expel us from the paradise Mochizuki has created.

>Mochizuki's proof is incorrect
Prove it.

>The Langlands method is essentially snapping together lego bricks
How so?

I think this is the beginning of the end for Mochizuki. He's gone way too far out on a limb and sucked some of his toadies in with him. Even Wiles acknowledged flaws in his original proofs and worked for years to fix them even though he too had invented new kinds of math.

It seems that others are coming out of the woodwork saying that this proof is flawed and instead of seeing any acknowledgment of that, they're just getting called brainlets.

This will be another one of those episodes that """sociologists of science""" use to get funding for meme studies departments. It's embarrassing and I hope that everyone who has been getting their sustenance from Mochizuki's cum for the last few years ends up teaching math to junior high students in the inner city.

Just to be clear, Scholze did NOT say the proof is flawed or doesn't work. Rather, he's acknowledged that he doesn't understand a major step and nobody in the last five years has explained it to him. The second paragraph you've written is utter /pol/-tier garbage and really shows incredible immaturity and a lack of understanding of the world.

this
how is someone with babyface and no testosterone supposed to achieve anything in math? he's essentialy a woman, or at least has feminine brain

There is a point of view that is pervasive throughout modern Arithmetic, Geometry, Number Theory, in that everything can be reduced to Representations, or in other words, Linear Algebra. This is how Wiles' proof was constructed. It is conducted in a very workman-like, brick by brick fashion. Mochizuki's IUT completely throws this out the window because it is inadequate for studying ABC as well as other inequalities that show up in Number Theory. Because most working Number Theorists learned the Langlands approach, they cannot read Mochizuki's papers. They need to cultivate a "beginner's mind" in order to see beyond their limited, professional perspective.

>balding
>long hair

That's how every branch has approached mathematics for centuries.

Poor mochizuki
>Corollary 3.12 in IUT3

"Soon after I posted my essay on Cathy O’Neil’s blog summarizing my impressions about the Oxford IUT workshop in December 2015, I received unsolicited emails from people whom I knew in quite distant parts of the world (one in Europe, one in Asia, and one in North America). Each of them told me that they had worked through the IUT papers on their own and were able to more-or-less understand things up to a specific proof where they had become rather stumped. For each of these people, the proof that had stumped them was for 3.12 in IUT3. It was striking to get three independent unsolicited emails in a matter of days which all zeroed in on that same proof as a point of confusion."

Representation theory hasn't been around for centuries

What kind of self hating degenerate you have to be to find number theory in any way compelling?

>What kind of self hating degenerate you have to be to find number theory in any way compelling?
What's wrong with number theory?

Reducing problems to linear algebra. And by the way, just because the terminology wasn't around doesn't mean the ideas weren't being applied.

don't mind the roleplayers

I think your post shows lack of understanding on two levels.

Whether Mochizuki's proof ends up being correct after fixes is, at this point, a side issue. The fact that people have been sucked in to some kind of thing that the brightest others can't understand is cultlike and will make him a joke in the future if there is even on mistake.

I also think that you have no concept of what sociology of science and related fields will make of this, and if you don't, that's your lack of understanding, not mine.

>The fact that people have been sucked in to some kind of thing that the brightest others can't understand is cultlike and will make him a joke in the future if there is even on mistake.
There have been mistakes found, but all have been minor and easily fixed without affecting the major result

>Reducing problems to linear algebra

That is essentially representation theory.

That's what I'm trying to fucking say.

You speak like someone with zero involvement in the field, but at the same time present yourself as a pompous expert.

You don't have to be an expert in any particular field to see how these things go. It's the same in every field. I have zero involvement in the field, but this isn't that different than any other unverified claim in any field being taken as true by people that really want it to.

That you think this is some math-only phenomenon means that you probably need to get off of this tahitian yacht club.

No one really doubts that ABC is true, though. The first person to *prove* it is what counts.

Maybe, but he has a permanent asterisk next to his name if he publishes in his own journal a flawed proof.

This is no different than Reinhart, Rogoff getting busted by a grad student who found a mistake in their spreadsheet. At the end of the day, there might still be some GDP percentage of debt that empirically slows growth, but they will always be known as the guys who had a mistake in their spreadsheet... or the result that was published about neutrinos exceeding c a few years back. Pick any field.

In math, just compare how discreet Wiles was. He kept it a secret he was even working on a proof for many years, or Perelman who dissed the whole system for misallocating credit. Mochizuki and his buttboys want the credit BEFORE it's even understood by the experts in the field.

This has nothing to do with understanding math. It has to do with

>Mochizuki and his buttboys want the credit BEFORE it's even understood by the experts in the field.
What's the evidence of this being about wanting credit?

>he's not in the same field
that's okay, I mean...
>he's not even in math
holy shit fuck off and keep your shitty opinions to yourself. idiot.

The only butt boys are the retards who refuse to think out side of their lenses with respect to religiously following orthodox Mathematics.

People like Scholze can never compare with Mochi.

I don't even know what you are debating at this point. You are probably both biologists or computer scientists.

If you were in the field, you'd know that Mochizuki's proof is not being taken as correct without more evidence. Hell, just read the myriad skeptical blog posts by leading arithmetic geometers, filled with comments from their peers.

>Hell, just read the myriad skeptical blog posts by leading arithmetic geometers
post the urls

in the op m8

>one post by one smug looking blogger
>myriad
welp, I guess that settles it then, the math "community" has spoken...

Read the comments. Those people are not random nobodies.

Well a few of them aren't.

>Scholze isn’t “in the field”
The absolute state of redditor Mochizukifags

Why did anyone bother with this jap's papers anyway?

Racism.

Everyone though, hey, nips are good at math right?

Because he's made huge advances in anabelian geometry in the past.

Because his previous work was good.

>PhD Princeton
>advisor medal fields
>works on advance grothendieck ideas
>full Autismo

So, what happens when Mochizuki realizes he has brought great shame on his famiry?

Sudoku

>tfw former research supervisor is in the comment section

Then according to this user you’re “not in the field” and can’t post here

>Then according to this user you’re “not in the field” and can’t post here
Did you quote the wrong post? That post just says 'post the urls'

What's the % chance that the next update to his IUT papers includes details for the proof of Corollary 3.12?

How many of you have even attempted to read any of the papers, much less 3.12?

Many incorrect mathmeticians were too

Fuck off with this shit. Have you? Can you confirm it? Explain it then, faggot.

i'm just here for the memes

t.engineer

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

Ive read some of it. The best way I can describe it is that its some kind of recursive function, with all the "universes" hes talking about observing each other.

shut the fuck up. "reading them" means very different things to mathematicians than to popsci roleplayers

f a g

...

>shut the fuck up. "reading them" means very different things to mathematicians than to popsci roleplayers
cringe

Quick Veeky Forums, what's an "alien arithmetic holomorphic structure"?

His proof isnt a proof, its filled with various QED statements. There are points where he arbitrarily defines terms and then immediately QEDs his way out of it to the next chapter.

0

...

>Quick Veeky Forums, what's an "alien arithmetic holomorphic structure"?
>[certain aspects of] the arithmetic holomorphic structure on one vertical line of the log-theta-lattice in terms that may be understood relative to an alien arithmetic holomorphic structure on another vertical line — i.e., separated from the first vertical line by horizontal arrows — of the log-theta-lattice

>His proof isnt a proof, its filled with various QED statements.
Which QED statement insufficient to be considered a proof?

Discount Grothendieck BTFO

>are not random nobodies
like Meme Tao:
"I do not have the expertise to have an informed first-hand opinion on Mochizuki’s work, but"

He's got a point mochisucker

No, like Brian Conrad.

Check the Remark 3.12.2 (ii) of newest version of IUT-III, December 14, 2017.

>Brian Conrad
>random nobody
Yeah okay

I was implying the opposite.

My bad, this thread just has me in the mood for arguing

another "i cant understand something because i am retard so must be wrong" thread

>it’s a pseuds pretending to be smarter on the basis of an unfalsifiable criterion episode

>Peter Scholze
>retard

wewlad

I asked for someone to explain that word salad, I could have copy-pasted myself.

>Remark 3.12.2 (ii) of newest version of IUT-III, December 14, 2017.
Scholze BTFO by based Mochizuki

The way people here just want to posture as intelligent is stupid. Let's just completely ignore that the point of a proof is to convince others *why* a result is true.

Same lmao

>I asked for someone to explain that word salad, I could have copy-pasted myself.
Have you tried looking up the definition of "arithmetic holomorphic structure" and "log-theta-lattice"?

>Implying Femail Omochizuki-sama won't solve it.

You are the worst kind of person. He's asking for an explanation of what the definition is trying to say, not a definition. Definitions can be opaque, and telling someone who wants further clarification to go look at the definition is stupid.

Show me on the doll where he touched you.

I have, if I hadn't I woudn't be asking here. It only references me to the papers. If someone were to explain to me what an alien arithmetic holomorphic structure were to me in this thread, it would be the first explanation on the internet.

>"I do not have the expertise to have an informed first-hand opinion on Mochizuki’s work, but here's what happened in other similar situations that I'm knowledgeable about"
Yes, what's wrong with that?

>You are the worst kind of person. He's asking for an explanation of what the definition is trying to say, not a definition. Definitions can be opaque, and telling someone who wants further clarification to go look at the definition is stupid.
An arithmetic holomorphic structure is alien to another arithmetic holomorphic structure if there's a horizontal arrow connecting them in the lattice, what could possibly be unclear in what the definition is trying to say?

Scholze BTFO by based Fesenko

www facebook com/ivan.fesenko.37/posts/1128469910617882

Originally, I sent the following questions to Peter Scholze in relation to his post somewhere on the internet about IUT. He responded with a short email, failing to answer any of the main points.
In fact, some of these questions are addressed to many mathematicians.

Dear Peter,

in relation to your post
galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/
can you answer several of my questions?

1 – Do you consider yourself an expert on IUT? I have not yet met an expert in IUT who complains about mistakes in it!

2 - Do you know other people who you call “experts” (in IUT) and who were not involved in the referee process or are not in the group of people who attended the workshops on IUT and gave talks there, or students of such people?

You also mention people “the immediate vicinity of Mochizuki” in the sense that only them can follow IUT. I would like to emphasize that there are several people, including me, who are not in this “vicinity” and who acknowledge the full validity of the IUT papers.

3 – You write about IUT-I-II: “very little seems to happen in those two papers (to me)”. Sorry, but this is quite incorrect to state!
First, IUT-I-II is very substantially based on deep previous results in the TAAG-III and ET papers, in the specific situation of the data in IUT. Secondly, the key new deep thing is how IUT-I-II is stated, it is stated in such a way as to make proofs of various resutls there almost obvious from the definitions. It is highly non-trivial to arrive at the way IUT-I-II is stated.

4 – I wrote a short text about basic aspects of mathematical responsibility at my previous facebook post: www facebook com/ivan.fesenko.37.
Do you have strong objections against any of its points?

5 – One point I made in my post is the (informal) duty of research active mathematicians working in areas not far from the area of a new breakthrough work to study it, provided they are already in the stage where they are relatively free from such burdens, and especially if they are in the prime of their mathematical life, which may or may not be related to be of age 30-50.

I wonder if you fully appreciate the fact that the generation of arithmetic geometers of age, say, between 30 and 50, has almost entirely failed to do that,
in relation to IUT?

Many representatives of this generation were invited to attend our workshops on IUT (including you), but very few came. Many responded to my invitation emails that they "were not interested" or "did not have time" or "busy with family" to study IUT, but now I see that some of them are very active in writing something "bad"about IUT on the internet.

The whole process of how the IUT were processed in the period of 5 years 2012-2017 is unique. The author of IUT was so open to all comments he received and applied, together with several other people, so much effort to accommodate anyone's concern, including your question in your only email you sent to him. You declined to communicate further with the author of the theory after he had invited you to do that. And yet, you consider appropriate to continue to say "bad" things about IUT at some conferences and blogs, despite your positive reaction to my previous emails where I explained that this is not the right way to follow.

I also wonder if you appreciate the fact that
this failure of this generation of mathematicians
does greatly contribute to the current bizarre situation in relation to IUT?

Do you appreciate how serious is this, how much it could harm the future of number theory?

Lol

6 – I confirm that it takes not more than 2 years to study IUT in good depth for good young researchers (PhD and postdoc level). I know several such people.

If so, it would be strange to doubt that every research active professor in arithmetic geometry can study IUT in the space of time not exceeding 2 years. There are already 5 years since the first version of IUT papers was made public, and one could have spread hours of its study within these 5 years, for example, going on sabbatical leave.

As you certainly know, many leading representatives of older generations took a much more active role in the study of IUT by attending our workshops or communicating with experts on IUT. Why is it in your opinion that the older generation of researchers is more responsive towards the study of IUT than people in the generation 30-50?

7 – You have not discussed with or passed the observation you make about the proof of Cor. 3.12 to the author of the theory. You have not discussed this issue of Cor. 3.12 with anyone in the group of people who attended the workshops on IUT and gave talks there, or students of such people. The way you state your problem with Cor. 3.12 is too vague, similarly to great vagueness of your only email to the author of the theory. If you had talked with experts on IUT, you would have been aware that several issues of Cor. 3.12 were the subject of extensive discussions between Shinichi Mochizuki and several researchers who study IUT, and also it was discussed several times at our seminar on IUT in Nottingham in 2017. Note that Remark 3.12.2 (ii) of the current version of IUT-III is one of outputs of the discussions… there is an ongoing new 80 pages survey text which includes many more details.

This is the face of religious dogmatism. Drink it in folks.

That guy totally wrote his own wikipedia page. It is way too detailed.

It's funny that he's actually defending this shit when Yamamoto was shit talking him and called him a liar. Apparently Fesenko doesn't understand IUT either so I don't know on what grounds he can say "It can be learned in two years or less" or that he can attest to the validity of the papers. Secondly even if there were workshops of IUT, when the fucking founder of the theory doesn't show up cause "muh japan" than why should anyone else even bother showing up?

Wasn't Yamamoto, it was Go Yamashita, my mistake

>get off my lawn, Scholze
This is dripping with the jealousy that older failed academics have for prodigies like Scholze.

>1 – Do you consider yourself an expert on IUT? I have not yet met an expert in IUT who complains about mistakes in it!
This is just more circular argumentation from Mochifags trying to justify the fact that their just front runners hoping to be the ones who said, in effect, I liked them on their first album.

I'm not an expert in astrology, but I don't have to be to know that it's bullshit. Likewise, you shouldn't have to be an expert in one narrow field to understand how it's relevant.

So, basically, Mochizuki belongs on the philosophy department is the shorter version of this.