さて 1)望月IUTに対する数学的反論は、例のSS文書のみ https://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/scholze/WhyABCisStillaConjecture.pdf Scholze氏は このp4で 2.1.Glossary:IUTT-terminology and how we may think of these objects.の節で ”This will involve certain radical simplifications,and it might be argued that such simplifications strip away all the interesting mathematics that forms the core of Mochizuki's proof.” と書いているけど、これ将棋で言えば禁じ手で、二歩みたいなもの
毎年のイベントで、cor.3.12に致命的な誤りがあると主張などしたら、 IUT理論の本質的な欠陥を示した論文の「IUT Challenger Prize」の100万ドルに挑戦しろと 言われるのか。 初年度の受賞者は誰かいるのだろう。来夏だろうか。すぐだね。 0193132人目の素数さん2023/07/12(水) 20:19:23.97ID:vqoEV9Iz not even wrongもあんまりIUT批判してたら跳ね返りがあると思うよ 0194132人目の素数さん2023/07/12(水) 20:23:03.12ID:awuUR6ri ショルツェでなくて、コンピューター数学の人が査読論文で、100万ドルに挑戦する? コンピューターが、「本質的は欠陥がここ、ここだよ」って。 0195132人目の素数さん2023/07/12(水) 20:35:07.27ID:1fNx7Ah4 日本の馬鹿成金がトンデモに金出すせいで 日本は最呆地域に転落する 0196132人目の素数さん2023/07/12(水) 20:53:51.69ID:rBhTC0ZV Peter Woit says: July 11, 2023 at 3:38 pm Soyoko U., Yes, the burden of proof is on Mochizuki and anyone else claiming there is a proof, not on anyone else. Why should anyone else now put any time and effort into this? One group of people who I think have a motivation to do something are the editors of the RIMS journal that accepted the papers. The reputation of their journal has taken a serious hit because of this. They have access to the referee reports, which either contain a convincing argument Scholze-Stix are wrong, or don’t. The fact that they have chosen to not release publicly such an argument and accept the damage to their reputation speaks volumes. 0197132人目の素数さん2023/07/12(水) 21:33:18.60ID:vqoEV9Iz 間違ってて欲しい人に教えることもないだろう 0198132人目の素数さん2023/07/12(水) 21:38:41.26ID:BEMc8vDO RIMSは説明責任に対応している気がするが。 査読通過にあたって、記者会見で編集委員会の公式見解を説明して責任を果たしている。
From the perspective of another scientific field, I think Woit’s argument is unfair. The timeline is, – Mochizuki claimed to have proved it, and a paper was published in a journal that might have problems. – Scholze and Stix pointed out the problem and had a dialogue with Mochizuki, which ended in a disagreement. – Dupty and Joshi, objective third parties, argued that Scholze and Stix’s points were problematic. – Scholze and Stix offered no rebuttal to those points. Here, Woit is telling us to submit complete proof to reliable journals. However, to move this discussion forward, either we point out new problems with Mochizuki’s proof, we accept the proof, or the mathematical community should set up a committee to verify the proof. Anyway, I don’t think the ball is in Mochizuki’s court. 0232132人目の素数さん2023/07/15(土) 16:18:01.77ID:Twh29Rh/ タイムラインとか言って、出版(2020)とSS文書(2018)の順が逆じゃねーか 数学の正否を論じるのにそもそも第三者とかいねえと思うが、 Dupuy & JoshiがSS文書をproblematicと言ってるのだけ引用して その両者がIUT論文は証明になってないと明言してる方はスルーかよ 0233132人目の素数さん2023/07/15(土) 17:14:05.28ID:CXkqKxb9 大体MSが正しいとかわめいてるのは 自己愛的国粋●違い 0234132人目の素数さん2023/07/15(土) 23:33:24.08ID:ufcOQii7 Woitのブログは、コメント記入は2ケ月後までだから、あとひと月半で逃げ切りになるのか。 0235132人目の素数さん2023/07/16(日) 00:16:32.11ID:ZvHz6K9q woitブログ記事にないが、 scholze stixの京大訪問前からあった 文科省マスコミ京大RIMSの失態。
KK, First, to correct your timeline: the journal published the papers in 2020, Scholze and Stix was 2018. This really is the source of the whole problem. These papers should never have been published over the strong objections of experts in the field and the lack of any significant revision of the papers to successfully meet the objections.
In 2020, see https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/szpirostillaconjecture.pdf Scholze extensively rebutted Dupuy’s points.
Joshi is not defending the argument in the Mochizuki papers, but believes he has his own somewhat different argument. He believes that he sees how to overcome the problem pointed out by Scholze-Stix, but as far as I know he has not yet produced his own version of what the Mochizuki lacks (a detailed and convincing proof of Corollary 3.12 and thus abc).