Timeline for Can one expect the existence of a relevant approach for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis using Mochizuki's theory? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Dec 12, 2015 at 16:46 | comment | added | user9072 | A link to some kind of conclusion of that workshop was posted today on this site. From it what seems most clear is that 'How likely is it that ABC can be proved using Mochizukis methods?" has no clear answer' is still very much true. | |
| Dec 12, 2015 at 16:26 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Sébastien, I don't know that the status of the question has changed since the conference ended, unless you and/or someone you know have some information which could be added as an answer. | |
| Dec 12, 2015 at 16:25 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | @quid: the CMI conference on Mochizuki's theory has finished yesterday, so it is perhaps the good time to reopen this post. | |
| Dec 12, 2015 at 15:32 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Dec 12, 2015 at 20:27 | |||||
| Nov 21, 2015 at 3:03 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 21, 2015 at 9:44 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2015 at 12:18 | comment | added | user9072 | @DanielLoughran what has this to do with the question how likely it is that the Riemann hypothesis can be proved using Mochizukis methods? The question is of course not far fetched (neither is it terrible, imo), as it is asking how viable something detailed over a couple of paragraphs of Mochizuki is. But hardly anybody has a good grasp what is even in the papers, so to ask what could be done in addition seems not answerable. To put this pointedly: as long as "How likely is it that ABC can be proved using Mochizukis methods?" has no clear answer, questions beyond that seem premature. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 10:40 | comment | added | Daniel Loughran | I don't think this question is so far fetched. Granville has shown that a suitably generalised version of the ABC conjecture would imply the non-existence of Siegel zeros for quadratic Dirichlet L-functions. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 17:46 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 15, 2015 at 19:30 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2015 at 17:44 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | I think it's fair to say that it has been difficult for most people to get into Mochizuki's work in a serious way and so any discussion on whether it is correct and what the implications to other questions it might have are just premature. Hopefully, next month's workshop will help change this. I think the best thing to do is wait a month. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 17:28 | history | edited | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
motivation
|
| Nov 15, 2015 at 17:04 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @SébastienPalcoux Thank you! I'm not sure it would help with reopening, but you might consider adding that detail to your question (it's certainly more than 'idle curiosity'). | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | @ToddTrimble: The main reason why I ask this question today is that one author of the abc conjecture is visiting my institute for 4 months, I've talked with him several times this week, and I discovered by him the polemic around Mochizuki's proof. Moreover because there will have this famous workshop next month, I think it would be a good opportunity to clarify this question also. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 16:19 | history | closed |
user9072 Lucia Alexey Ustinov Noah Snyder user1073 |
Opinion-based | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 16:05 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | What motivates you to ask? Is this something you think will be useful for your own research, or is it sort of idle curiosity? | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 15:51 | answer | added | Myshkin | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | nfdc23 | The phrase "published a series of 6 papers...on his webpage" significantly lowers the bar for what it means to "publish". This highly speculative question has no place on MO. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 15:03 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 15, 2015 at 16:19 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2015 at 14:45 | comment | added | Lucia | I'm sorry but this is a terrible question. What is the point of speculating on how Mochizuki's work (which no one seems to have seriously evaluated), applies or does not apply to RH? | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 14:44 | comment | added | user9072 | It the paper it says "perhaps some extension of the theory of the present series of papers — i.e., some sort of “inter-universal Mellin transform” — may be obtained that allows one to relate the theory of the present series of papers to the Riemann zeta function." This sounds pretty vague. Preceding it there are some more remarks, but it seems very speculative. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 14:35 | history | edited | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 147 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2015 at 14:29 | history | asked | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |