Timeline for What was achieved on IUT summit, RIMS workshop? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 29, 2016 at 22:45 | vote | accept | tttbase | ||
| Mar 7, 2017 at 13:01 | |||||
| Dec 29, 2016 at 19:29 | vote | accept | tttbase | ||
| Dec 29, 2016 at 19:29 | |||||
| Aug 1, 2016 at 19:47 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Aug 2, 2016 at 10:09 | |||||
| Aug 1, 2016 at 6:23 | history | closed |
Stefan Kohl♦ Lucia Alain Valette Felipe Voloch Stefan Waldmann |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Jul 31, 2016 at 18:54 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @StefanKohl +1 and thanks for that "project sophistication" line, regarding this question and some older ones concerning Grothendieck-ery. | |
| Jul 31, 2016 at 11:01 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl♦ | If you would like to ask a real question on Mochizuki's work (and not just one "designed to project sophistication", in the sense of Bill Thurston), then I think you need to be a lot more specific. Questions of the form "Has this-or-that work been verified?" are rather not suitable for MO, therefore I have voted to close as "unclear what you're asking". | |
| Jul 31, 2016 at 10:12 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 1, 2016 at 6:23 | |||||
| Jul 31, 2016 at 8:32 | history | edited | Myshkin |
+ top level tag (ag.) + arithmetic geometry tag
|
|
| Jul 31, 2016 at 5:56 | comment | added | Vesselin Dimitrov | @post.as.a.guest: It means exactly what you say, that IUT-III Cor. 3.12 has the stated implication. Actually that proposition is not just a result in Mochizuki's work: it is the entire output of IUT theory, with everything after it being rather straightforward estimates that are not that hard do check. This is why I just said "IUT implies...," as everything really amounts to III 3.12. That being said, I share your feelings about this. My point was to try to clarify what precisely Mochizuki's inequality is, and what kinds of consequences might emerge if the methods get understood. | |
| Jul 31, 2016 at 4:05 | answer | added | post.as.a.guest | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jul 30, 2016 at 2:03 | comment | added | user40276 | Probably nothing. I don't understand the point of these vague questions. If you want to know something about Mochizuki work ask a more specific question (something about the slides or the papers) | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 21:20 | comment | added | Raphael J.F. Berger | Also all slides of all talks from the conference are accessible from the conference website: maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/files/kyoto.iut.html some interesting comment by Ivan Fesenko is on his facebookpage (facebook.com/ivan.fesenko.37?fref=ts) and there are lots of comments on twitter mostly by Christelle Vincent and also by Taylor Dupuy (you might find them when you follow the link from OP). | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 16:32 | comment | added | Raphael J.F. Berger | Here is a new Nature article from Castelvecchi which touches on the recent conference: nature.com/news/…. | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 16:14 | history | edited | Wolfgang |
added tag
|
|
| Jul 29, 2016 at 15:38 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 29, 2016 at 17:12 | |||||
| Jul 29, 2016 at 15:23 | comment | added | Stiofán Fordham | If you do want to know what happened at the meeting then you should email a participant! | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 15:18 | comment | added | Raphael J.F. Berger | Also they have recorded all talks on video, but they are not yet published, as far as I know. | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 15:10 | comment | added | Raphael J.F. Berger | I have asked a more specific question with a less specific flag (soft question) but it was closed mathoverflow.net/questions/243750/… | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 12:56 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jul 29, 2016 at 9:44 | comment | added | post.as.a.guest | As an aside, I am not entirely convinced (in Mochizuki's latest 115-page overview) of "alien copies" of structures corresponding by analogy to the traditional polar-coordinate evaluation of the Gaussian integral $I$ being equal to $\sqrt\pi$, as one gets $I^2=\pi$ therein, and an additional argument is needed to get the positive sign. Is this extra step available in the scheme-theoretic setting, with choices of units? The "justification of the naive approach" (1.7) makes it even more mysterious IMO, calling the answer $\sqrt\pi$ itself an error term! | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 6:04 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | What happens in the IUT summit at RIMS stays in the IUT summit at RIMS. | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 5:58 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 29, 2016 at 4:23 | comment | added | post.as.a.guest | One could do worse than read all of Vincent's tweets. She at least gives some perspective of what occurred. | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 4:21 | comment | added | post.as.a.guest | In Dimitrov's talk, what does "IUT implies no Siegel zero at negative discriminants" precisely mean? Maybe "IUT-III Cor. 3.12" as quoted at some other point? In the given situation, I don't know if I would consider "Result X in Mochizuki's work" to be a reasonable starting point for further investigation. It's sort of like the economist assuming there is a can opener. | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 3:28 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/files/dimitrov.pdf is slides from a presentation by Vesselin Dimitrov, Notes on the $\epsilon$ part in the $abc$ conjecture (Including Siegel zeros and effectivity in IUT). | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 2:41 | history | asked | tttbase | CC BY-SA 3.0 |