If all millenium problems were solved by different people

Who would have the biggest legacy ?

Other urls found in this thread:

quantamagazine.org/will-peter-scholze-win-the-fields-medal-in-2018-20160628/
math.uni-bonn.de/people/scholze/PerfectoidSpaces.pdf
vixra.org/abs/1703.0073
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

the one who solved riemann (historical value + implies tons of theorems) or the one who solved P vs NP if they somehow give a constructive proof of P=NP.

What kind of reaction would proving n stokes cause ?

Terry Tao would.
Alternatively, Perelman would because none of the other ones (i.e. the currently unsolved ones) will ever be solved.

Well retard thats what people believed before perelman did it

What if the solution is a disproof of RH?
You don't get the benefit of the tons of theorems.
Same goes for P vs NP. Lots of advances if P=NP and none otherwise.

Which problems have a significant impact regardless of whether the solution affirms the conjecture or not?

Brainlet here, what do math niggas who are trying to prove these problems like do all day? Is it just a matter of creativity, like writer's block, where you sit there until you can figure out something to try?

From what I read about perelman he somehow during a hamilton lecture about the ricci flow (who couldnt proof the poincare conjecture) found I way to prove it and isolated himself for the next 7 years

I heard Mochizuki is close to solving the Riemann hypothesis. Since he's already famous for proving the abc conjecture, he will be remembered as the Gauß of our time.

Another retard, his proof has already received some critics from a superiour mathematician peter scholze and obviously, it hasent been announced correct by mathematicans.

P vs NP and Navier-Stokes will never be completely solved, so those two

> superiour mathematician peter scholze
lol

>it hasent been announced correct by mathematicans.
Wrong.

What lol ? Kill yourself waste of oxygen. Hes gonna get the fields medal this year something that mochizuki would never archieve

>using awards that haven't even been won yet as a justification for your argument over actual substantive work

yikes

Mochizuki hasnt even son an international award in maths gtfo

won* and is much older lol

>thinking awards mean anything
undergrad spotted or German insecure about his country's lack of mathematical accomplishment in recent times

Well you gain recognition and it simply goes to those with the greatest works. So obviously means something

Scholze has done nothing even remotely significant enough to warrant a Fields medal. Becoming a professor at age 24 isn't in and of itself significant enough to win the Fields

Holy shit you stupid fucking subhuman je has already son plenty of awards ( as you can see in the picture) for his work in algebraic geometry... do you srs believe I would comment nonsense trash

He * won*

Can you point to some papers he's written that have been significant in the field? Again you're acting like an undergrad just pointing to awards and not specific accomplishments

quantamagazine.org/will-peter-scholze-win-the-fields-medal-in-2018-20160628/ just read math.uni-bonn.de/people/scholze/PerfectoidSpaces.pdf

I'm quite aware of his doctoral thesis considering it's important for my work, but I don't really see it as being significant enough to warrant a Fields Medal

>muh awards
>phoneposting
yikes

Well hes the favorite the award is also for people under 40 and 4 people getit each 4 years

>Well hes the favorite the award is also for people under 40 and 4 people getit each 4 years
What's your point?

He isnt being compared to older mathematician faggot

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

Shut up japanese supremacist

>posts a popsci article
yikes

then what's your point? We should discredit Mochizuki's discoveries because he didn't get a Fields Medal and someone who has a possibility of winning the Fields Medal apparently doesn't agree with his work? That's extremely poor thinking. I hope you're either underaged or failing your maths coursework

I disproved RH last year

>On The Riemann Zeta Function
>vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

the dubs of truth

P vs NP, our future existence now depends more on exotic materials and extending our theory of computation, resolving P v NP will likely require enormous leaps in understanding so such a proof would necessarily bring with it great ideas needed for the future

>You don't get the benefit of the tons of theorems.
the opposite of a theorem is a theorem of the opposite

I'd say P=NP. A positive proof would obviously be huge. A negative proof not so much, but it would at least have implications about future-proofing certain cryptographic systems.

How is anyone convinced by this sort of reasoning?

lmao I've already developed an equation which predicts the location of prime numbers, just don't feel like sharing it haha.