3 ms·

The summary is known. Have you read the abstracts?

logicallee 11y ago
Did you even read our article, jsprogrammer? That's what I'm reacting to. It says: >A consensus emerged that the highlight of the workshop was a lecture on 9 December by Kiran Kedlaya, an arithmetic geometer from the University of California, San Diego. He zeroed in on a result from a 2008 paper by Mochizuki that linked the statement of the abc conjecture to another branch of maths called topology. The link was immediately recognised as a crucial step in Mochizuki’s grand strategy. This is why I'm making the reference to ancient lost texts. I mean, if the result of a 2008 paper is crucial, you'd think the guy would have just mentioned this fact. It's as though they're investigating some long dead guy's hidden thoughts. This is a direct quote: "There is still no clear answer to lingering questions about how things are ultimately going to fit together." What? Wouldn't the guy just tell you how they're ultimately going to fit together? I'm utterly perplexed at the process the article describes, when the author is available and can give hints.
- shmageggy 11y ago
  What I understood from http://mathbabe.org/2015/12/15/notes-on-the-oxford-iut-workshop-by-brian-conrad/ http://mathbabe.org/2015/12/15/notes-on-the-oxford-iut-works... (posted elsewhere here), is that the problem stems from differing motivations. On one hand, Mochizuki wants to make his proof fullyt complete and correct (being both fully general and covering all special cases), but the community wants broad strokes intuitions. From Mochizuki's perspective, he has told everyone how things fit together, but fit together means something different for others. The workshop attendees want to know what things they can gloss over to get the big picture, but as of yet, nobody who understands the proof has succeeded in communicating that information, probably because they don't share the same motivation.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  I did read the article. It wasn't clear that you were referring to that specific paragraph. > I mean, if the result of a 2008 paper is crucial, you'd think the guy would have just mentioned this fact. Maybe he did? Or maybe it is just not crucial.∎ The article just states "The link was immediately recognised as a crucial step in Mochizuki's grand strategy."...that is just the writer's opinion. Linking these papers to topology is trivial. The word "topological" alone occurs 111 times in the first paper. A lot of what I'm reading in this article, and others, is people complaining about not understanding something that they (probably/apparently) have not even read.

Did you even read our article, jsprogrammer? That's what I'm reacting to. It says: >A consensus emerged that the highlight of the workshop was a lecture on 9 December by Kiran Kedlaya, an arithmetic geometer from the University of California, San Diego. He zeroed in on a result from a 2008 paper by Mochizuki that linked the statement of the abc conjecture to another branch of maths called topology. The link was immediately recognised as a crucial step in Mochizuki’s grand strategy. This is why I'm making the reference to ancient lost texts. I mean, if the result of a 2008 paper is crucial, you'd think the guy would have just mentioned this fact. It's as though they're investigating some long dead guy's hidden thoughts. This is a direct quote: "There is still no clear answer to lingering questions about how things are ultimately going to fit together." What? Wouldn't the guy just tell you how they're ultimately going to fit together? I'm utterly perplexed at the process the article describes, when the author is available and can give hints.

shmageggy 11y ago
What I understood from http://mathbabe.org/2015/12/15/notes-on-the-oxford-iut-workshop-by-brian-conrad/ http://mathbabe.org/2015/12/15/notes-on-the-oxford-iut-works... (posted elsewhere here), is that the problem stems from differing motivations. On one hand, Mochizuki wants to make his proof fullyt complete and correct (being both fully general and covering all special cases), but the community wants broad strokes intuitions. From Mochizuki's perspective, he has told everyone how things fit together, but fit together means something different for others. The workshop attendees want to know what things they can gloss over to get the big picture, but as of yet, nobody who understands the proof has succeeded in communicating that information, probably because they don't share the same motivation.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
I did read the article. It wasn't clear that you were referring to that specific paragraph. > I mean, if the result of a 2008 paper is crucial, you'd think the guy would have just mentioned this fact. Maybe he did? Or maybe it is just not crucial.∎ The article just states "The link was immediately recognised as a crucial step in Mochizuki's grand strategy."...that is just the writer's opinion. Linking these papers to topology is trivial. The word "topological" alone occurs 111 times in the first paper. A lot of what I'm reading in this article, and others, is people complaining about not understanding something that they (probably/apparently) have not even read.