Owen and other mathies -
Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki, the Yoda of math and the
ABC Conjecture proof: Won't explain will I!
http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
Just for math folks, others please delete.
And now for some Silly Talk (rhyme's with the Monty Python Players Silly
Walk?):
I think this story relates well to the discussion earlier about
"Outsider Science" and the communal/consensual nature of Science. While
this is technically Mathematics, "merely" a branch of Philosophy and/or
a "tool" for doing Science, most if not all of the same principles apply
to this story since what is happening is that someone (with credibility
in the community) has laid down a challenge to his peers in the form of
a "proof" of a conjecture that would be a a theorem. The fact that he
is unwilling or unable (?) to engage with others significantly to
explain or defend his proof and that *others* are unwilling to do the
hard work to slog through it creates an interesting conundrum.
As a matter of practicality, I understand how many would be unwilling,
and why some would claim that if "nobody bothers" then the "proof is not
a proof at all". On the other hand, if he has done his work and the
proof is there, despite requiring a long and arduous engagement with
(apparently) a lot of intermediate work he has done, then some day it
*will* be verified by another and will have been a "proof" all along,
even if it wasn't shared by a community larger than himself. I believe
it is proper to say that Fermat's Last Theorem (which relates to the ABC
conjecture at hand) was a Theorem all along, but only once a proof was
found (and shared and validated) could we actually make that claim...
until then it was a Conjecture which may or may not have a known (only
to now-dead Fermat?) proof...
I'm not really that plugged into the academic world, but I can't imagine
there isn't some young prodigy right now lining up to get HER PhD by
mining Mochizuki's work and not only verifying his work, but also
finding some other gems in the work he did to get there which would
provide the basis for some original research (harder and harder to find
these days?).
It also seems that there are enough practical uses for this type of
abstract math (generally in the domain of cryptography?) to attract
people to sorting through all this for possible financial gains?
I *LOVED* the mathematical circumlutory style of his opening statement
in his first paper:
"Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory I: Construction of Hodge Theaters,"
starts out by stating that the goal is "to establish an arithmetic
version of Teichmuller theory for number fields equipped with an
elliptic curve... by applying the theory of semi-graphs of anabelioids,
Frobenioids, the etale theta function, and log-shells."
It might be the case that some folks here (I'm thinking Frank Wimberly
in particular) already might know what a Frobenius Monoid would be and
how they might differ from an anabeloid] (Anabelle's Monoid?). With a
BS (stale 35 years) in Math and a lot of lay/professional-interest over
decades, I admit to still feeling lame while trying to tread water in
Mochikizu's puddle. I had the great good fun of mucking around in
Fiber/Vector Bundles 15 years ago which suggests I might be able to
continue on and figure out Frobenoids and such, but seems likely not,
which sounds like hardly even a start toward understanding his proof.
I didn't follow your suggestion to delete, nor my good judgement to not
try to drill down into Teichmuller theory, Frobenoids, and etale theta
funcitons so I suppose I got what I deserved!
Quaquaversally yours,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
