4 ms·

> "simply not qualified" to issue a definitive statement on the proof unless they start from the very basics of his theory How is it arrogant to say people ne

> "simply not qualified" to issue a definitive statement on the proof unless they start from the very basics of his theory How is it arrogant to say people need to study the whole branch, from the beginning, rather than just try to cherry pick a few advanced parts of it, if he really did come up with a substantially new branch? That sounds more like practicality than arrogance to me.

sukilot 12y ago
It is quite a risk to spend a year or more in dedicated study before seeing any results whatsoever interesting. Why are there no basic lemmas in this new theory?
mathattack 12y ago
This requires years of in-depth study without guideposts. If it's a brand new field, help people along the way. (Write books, explain the concepts globally, create projects for Phds, etc.)
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  As I recall, he's personally tutoring at least one other mathematician, doing lectures, etc -- that is, I'm pretty sure he's doing the last two of your suggestions. Writing books, of course, is a multi-year process in addition to his other work. The problem is that they're disqualifying people who study under him in this manner from verifying his work, which seems like something of a catch-22.
  - mathattack 12y ago
    It's tough, but that standard exists for a reason. They want it to be somewhat arms length. But this means that if you go too far off the beaten path, it's hard to follow.
    - ObviousScience 12y ago
      I agree that the standard exists for a reason; my point was that it's unfair to characterize him as not trying. The standard doesn't just make it hard to follow someone who sets out a new branch in depth - it makes it virtually impossible for an extended period of time, because it disqualifies anyone he guides. Such a standard requires that we essentially wait 5+ years (at best) until either high quality maps or guides trained by the initial guided group exist. (And even then, we'll probably wait longer.) It's not exactly fair to paint that fact as a failing on his part to educate others -- it's a nasty corner case in a generally good academic standard.

sukilot 12y ago

It is quite a risk to spend a year or more in dedicated study before seeing any results whatsoever interesting. Why are there no basic lemmas in this new theory?

mathattack 12y ago

This requires years of in-depth study without guideposts. If it's a brand new field, help people along the way. (Write books, explain the concepts globally, create projects for Phds, etc.)

ObviousScience 12y ago
As I recall, he's personally tutoring at least one other mathematician, doing lectures, etc -- that is, I'm pretty sure he's doing the last two of your suggestions. Writing books, of course, is a multi-year process in addition to his other work. The problem is that they're disqualifying people who study under him in this manner from verifying his work, which seems like something of a catch-22.
- mathattack 12y ago
  It's tough, but that standard exists for a reason. They want it to be somewhat arms length. But this means that if you go too far off the beaten path, it's hard to follow.
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    I agree that the standard exists for a reason; my point was that it's unfair to characterize him as not trying. The standard doesn't just make it hard to follow someone who sets out a new branch in depth - it makes it virtually impossible for an extended period of time, because it disqualifies anyone he guides. Such a standard requires that we essentially wait 5+ years (at best) until either high quality maps or guides trained by the initial guided group exist. (And even then, we'll probably wait longer.) It's not exactly fair to paint that fact as a failing on his part to educate others -- it's a nasty corner case in a generally good academic standard.