4 ms·
I actually read the whole article word-to-word. May be this personality of Shinichi Mochizuki appeals to me or may be i find maths more interesting than i admit
by imdhmd 13y ago
I actually read the whole article word-to-word. May be this personality of Shinichi Mochizuki appeals to me or may be i find maths more interesting than i admit. But i dont know which.
Also, i find it quite surprising that the proof for problems in domains as elementary as number theory, should have to be so complex, sort of baffles me. I hope i can rise up to the level to begin to understand this lingo or that someone brings it down to the level where i can find it interesting to read, like this article :D
- tzs 13y ago> Also, i find it quite surprising that the proof for problems in domains as elementary as number theory, should have to be so complex, sort of baffles me. One reason for this is that primes are defined by their multiplicative properties. There aren't many easy connections between primes and the additive properties of numbers, and so proofs that try to relate additive things to primes tend to involve deep and complicated things.