5 ms·

> When he told colleagues the nature of Scholze and Stix’s objections, he wrote, his descriptions “were met with a remarkably unanimous response of utter astoni

• Jweb_Guru 8y ago
  He is being a jerk. Also, not responding to the actual argument, as far as I can tell (which is technical, but quite clear). There are some other damning statements in the rebuttal, too--for example, they say that all the new machinery developed for anabelian geometry lies unused in the case to which Corollary 3.12 applies (meaning most of the effort mathematicians have been spending in order to try to understand Mochizuki's new mathematics has been wasted). They also mention other incidental complexities that serve to obfuscate the argument but don't seem to buy anything (for example, not choosing a specific isomorphism at one point in the proof, but instead asking the reader to consider all isomorphisms with particular properties, for reasons he has been unable to justify). Someone in his position should be aiming to clean up his proofs to be as straightforward as possible, not making them deliberately harder to verify.
• xc10001 8y ago
  New Law: Any Internet discussion will be reduced to jerk/non-jerk within 30 minutes.
• Soundest 8y ago
  Well, let's lay aside the fact that there clearly are plenty of jerks in academia. The entire article seems to layout a sort of string of unusual and problematic situations. Whether it's people who hit upon the problem conjecture and chose not to speak out for fear of causing trouble, or the journal publishing the proof being edited by the author, or the large number of 'delegates' who seem to be pushing the proof without being able to explain the proof, it seems this is a mix of problems that are arising from an unhealthy situation.
• a-nikolaev 8y ago
  Math academic community is actually very healthy overall, in my experience.
  • WilliamEdward 8y ago
    see: monty hall problem But anyway, mathematics is not any more unhealthy than any other field, but it does have toxicity like all others do as well.
    • rocqua 8y ago
      Given the anecdotal correlation between math and autism, and the effects of autism on sociability, one might expect mathematics to have different toxicity. I never went deep enough into mathematical academia to judge, let alone getting into other fields to allow for a comparison.
    • ssmmww 8y ago
      My understanding is that the Monty Hall problem was just a cute puzzle published in a pop-sci magazine that confused a few professors who perhaps ought not to have been confused by it. I don't think it says anything at all about the health of the mathematical community.
      • fjsolwmv 8y ago
        It was also ambiguously worded, which is the bane of probability problems posed by people who think they are clever (like vos Savant).
        • mannykannot 8y ago
          I will repeat what I wrote about this point a couple of weeks ago: According to vos Savant, in most of the cases where the correspondent actually had a correction to offer for her alleged error, they were assuming the intended interpretation of the puzzle.
      • WilliamEdward 8y ago
• rurban 8y ago
  This is typical behavior in Japan when you question someones authority. It doesn't go well with them, it's a direct attack on their honor. You really need to go deeper with him (over dinner or so), but he refuses, so most likely he is wrong snd he knows it.
• Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  If nothing else, this new criticism can be used to clarify and improve the original proof. This response is .. not encouraging.
• mannykannot 8y ago
  If the objections really were founded on a basic misunderstanding, then one would expect a straightforward clarification to be forthcoming (where 'straightforward' should be read in the context of the formidable mathematical abilities of the parties to this dispute.) Its absence suggests that this is bluster (though that interpretation is made through the filter of my western/English-speaking cultural background.)