[過去ﾛｸﾞ] Inter-universal geometry と ABC予想 (応援スレ) 65 (1002ﾚｽ)

Inter-universal geometry と ABC予想 (応援スレ) 65 http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1644632425/

上下前次1-新
通常表示 512ﾊﾞｲﾄ分割 ﾚｽ栞
抽出解除 ﾚｽ栞

---

このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索 歴削→次ｽﾚ 栞削→次ｽﾚ 過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ

---

698: １３２人目の素数さん [] 2022/04/29(金) 07:58:30.65 ID:b8gsErp4 >>567 & >>575 関連 https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yaBRI6rvLroJ:https://twitter.com/math_jin+&cd=1&hl=ja&ct=clnk&gl=jp math_jin Apr 25 More Last week a review of the Mochizuki IUT papers appeared at Math Reviews, written by Mohamed Saidi. His discussion of the critical part of the proof is limited to: "Theorem 3.11 in Part III is somehow reinterpreted in Corollary 3.12 of the…#IUTABC https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12775 … https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12775 Not Even Wrong woit Various and Sundry Posted on April 18, 2022 by woit Last week a review of the Mochizuki IUT papers appeared at Math Reviews, written by Mohamed Saidi. His discussion of the critical part of the proof is limited to: tulpoeid says: April 24, 2022 at 1:55 am About IUT, what I’ve been trying to understand is if that work has other merits on its own. Ie. even if the proof of Corollary 3.12 is wrong, so the overall proof is wrong, does Mochizuki’s vast construct contribute to math in some other collateral way? If I’m right this has happened before with proofs that turned out to be wrong, and I’ll be genuinely puzzled if such complex work has nothing else to offer and all its value is hanging on a single point. Hermann Vile says: April 24, 2022 at 2:49 pm Mochizuki’s latest endeavor seems to be regularly updating this document (https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Essential%20Logical%20Structure%20of%20Inter-universal%20Teichmuller%20Theory.pdf), which is now 140 pages. I doubt this will convince anyone; if anything, his writing has become even more turgid and depressing. @tulpoeid: No, there is *nothing* useful in IUT. If there was, it would’ve been successfully extracted by ambitious young people in the ten (!) years since the IUT papers were first posted. https://twitter.com/5chan_nel (5ch newer account) http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1644632425/698

756: １３２人目の素数さん [] 2022/04/29(金) 23:39:26.59 ID:b8gsErp4 >>753-755 レスありがとう ちょっと整理すると 1．事実の整理：仮にショルツェ氏は読めてないとしても 　しかし、読めた人は多数いる（具体名は挙げないが多数いるよね） 2．ショルツェ氏はレビューで、IUTはダメという 　一方、Saidi氏は別レビューで、IUTは正しいという 　評価は、真っ向対立している 3．これをどう考えるべきか？ 　仮説A：IUTは正しい → ショルツェ氏は正しく読めていない 　仮説B：IUTは正くない → 望月氏を指示する多数の人は読めているふりをしているだけで本当は不正だ（>>698のwoit氏意見に類似） 4．普通に考えて、仮説Aが妥当でしょ 　理由は、仮説Bはあまりにも荒唐無稽で陰謀論じみている 　なお、IUT論文はちゃんと査読されたし、昨年は4回の国際会議をした 　5人共著の明示公式論文を出したし、その論文も査読が通って東京工大の紀要掲載予定だ 　よって、”IUTは正しい”と判断するのが妥当と思うよ 以上 http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1644632425/756

---

上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴

---

ｽﾚ情報 赤ﾚｽ抽出 画像ﾚｽ抽出 歴の未読ｽﾚ AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ

---

Google検索

Wikipedia

---

ぬこの手 ぬこTOP 2.161s*