5 ms·
It would take an extraordinary effort. I doubt there is anyone who could learn this material given anything less than a year of solid study -- and I am thinking
by impendia 11y ago
It would take an extraordinary effort. I doubt there is anyone who could learn this material given anything less than a year of solid study -- and I am thinking of the leading researchers in the world, who are already experts in everything related. I am a professional mathematician myself, and I doubt I could manage it even within a year.
This is dictated by the difficulty of the subject, and it is even more so since Mochizuki's papers are notoriously difficult to read. What I have heard from other research mathematicians is that Mochizuki doesn't make much of an effort to make himself comprehensible, to answer questions, or in general to explain his results to the community.
Also please be warned that the consensus is generally that Mochizuki's theory is probably incorrect.
That said, if you want to learn the stuff, there is no reference other than Mochizuki's papers themselves. If you would like to learn some general background theory I would recommend learning some algebraic geometry, for which see Ravi Vakil's book:
http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGapr2915public.pdf http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGapr2915public.pd...
and maybe Milne on etale cohmology:
http://www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/LEC210.pdf http://www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/LEC210.pdf
If you find that incomprehensible, start with Dummit and Foote's Abstract Algebra (read it cover to cover), Neukirch's Algebraic Number Theory, Atiyah and Macdonald's Commutative Algebra, and Fulton and Harris's Representation Theory.
If you indeed want to read all that, you may as well enroll in a Ph.D. program in math....
- valera_rozuvan 11y agoThanks for your answer! I will think about enrolling in a Ph.D = ) On a side note, apparently I missed an earlier Hacker News post about the approach to understanding this theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8866144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8866144 .
- upwg24 11y agothe mathematical advice contained in this comment is incorrect. For correct information see e.g. http://www.claymath.org/events/iut-theory-shinichi-mochizuki http://www.claymath.org/events/iut-theory-shinichi-mochizuki "the consensus is generally that Mochizuki's theory is probably incorrect", "I am a professional mathematician" - these two claims contradict each other: no professional mathematician would make such false claims
- smeyer 11y ago>no professional mathematician would make such false claims Well, that's obviously incorrect, because the previous commenter did in fact make those claims and is in fact a professional mathematician. It's not like you can make some sort of no true scotsman argument about his profession: http://people.math.sc.edu/thornef/ http://people.math.sc.edu/thornef/ .
- impendia 11y agoThe consensus is that Mochizuki's theory, at least insofar as it claims to prove ABC, is probably incorrect. (Otherwise this workshop would be a lot more popular.) But not definitely incorrect. Mochizuki is certainly not an obvious crank. His theory may be right, perhaps only partially -- in which case it will be enormously consequential. So it's still worth paying attention to. (In Minhyong Kim's judgment, which carries a hell of a lot more weight than mine.) I do stand corrected a little bit: I see that a couple other reputable mathematicians have already invested some time digesting his work, and further that Mochizuki has decided to be more open to answering questions.
- valera_rozuvan 11y agoThe most detailed and up-to-date resource on the link between ABC conjecture and Mochizuki's inter-universal Teichmuller theory, IMHO, is http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=ABC_conjecture http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=ABC_conj... . It lists a survey article on IUT Theory by Ivan Fesenko entitled "ARITHMETIC DEFORMATION THEORY VIA ARITHMETIC FUNDAMENTAL GROUPS AND NONARCHIMEDEAN THETA-FUNCTIONS, NOTES ON THE WORK OF SHINICHI MOCHIZUKI" [preprint February 2015] ( https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/notesoniut.pdf https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/notesoniut.p... ).
- valera_rozuvan 11y agoAfter reading many articles, posts, communication channels, etc. on the Internet about IUT Theory of Shinichi Mochizuki, I think I am starting to understand why some people believe that the theory doesn't prove the ABC conjecture. It can be summed up by a phrase I found on some blog: "I believe in a proof if I understand it.". I have done some research, and came upon the source of that idea: Pierre Deligne was first to express: "I don't believe in a proof done by a computer ... I believe in a proof if I understand it." [George G. Szpiro, Kepler's Conjecture, John Wiley, 2003. p.21]
- valera_rozuvan 11y ago"I don't believe in a proof done by a computer, says Pierre Deligne of the Institute for Advanced Study, an algebraic geometer and 1978 Fields Medalist. “In a way, I am very egocentric. I believe in a proof if I understand it, if it’s clear.” While recognizing that humans can make mistakes, he adds: “A computer will also make mistakes, but they are much more diffcult to find." THE DEATH OF PROOF by John Horgan http://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Articles/DeathOfProof.pdf http://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Articles/DeathOfProof.pdf
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]