現代数学の系譜工学物理雑談古典ガロア理論も読む79

[過去ﾛｸﾞ] 現代数学の系譜工学物理雑談古典ガロア理論も読む79 (1002ﾚｽ)
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

ﾘﾛｰﾄﾞ規制です｡10分ほどで解除するので､他のﾌﾞﾗｳｻﾞへ避難してください｡

227: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE  [] 2019/12/01(日) 13:41:17.77 ID:id6ENHqe

>>226

つづき

3.3. An attempt to study IUT by two German mathematicians and ethical issues.
In 2013?2017 not a single concrete mathematical remark indicating a serious problem in IUT was produced. This did not prevent
some cheap irresponsible talk. Since 2014 P. Scholze kept talking publicly at various workshops about faults in IUT.12
Eventually Scholze visited RIMS, together with J. Stix, in March 2018, just for 5 days.13
After the meeting, Scholze and Stix came with their caricature version of IUT based on their oversimplification of IUT in which they identify all isomorphic rings and ‘forget’ about the fundamental role of automorphism groups.
In particular, the two German mathematicians deny the use of anabelian geometry and infinitely many theatres in IUT.14
Initially, Scholze and Stix intended to put their report about the meeting online. However, after reading Mochizuki’s report on their report, see especially its sect. 17-18 15 and these comments16, they completely changed their mind in July 2018 and stopped to be interested to post their own report.
They eventually agreed to let the author of IUT to include their report on his pages.
The author of IUT formulated several questions to the German mathematicians in his report that may have helped them to appreciate how erroneous was their take on IUT.
The second version of their report did not address most of comments of Mochizuki on their first report.
The second version of their report also included new incorrect statements such as a blunder in classical height theory and a fundamental misunderstanding of one of Faltings work.

つづく

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1573769803/227

228: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE  [] 2019/12/01(日) 13:41:41.93 ID:id6ENHqe

>>227

つづき

No mathematicians are known to support the superficial take of Scholze?Stix on IUT.
Their short lived study of IUT17 stands in shark contrast with the deep study of it by the other mathematicians mentioned above, who asked/made many good questions, remarks and comments.
If one does not apply appropriate efforts to study the area of a fundamentally new theory, one does not become an expert in it, whatever one’s own different area of specialisation is and achievements in it.
Of course, it is still possible to contribute useful questions, comments, remarks in relation to more conventional parts of the theory, e.g. those that came in 2012 from two analytic number theorists.
To make a mistake in one’s mathematical study is rather normal, especially when one tries to understand a complex theory going much deeper than standard research.
However, to publicly talk about faults in another theory for several years without ever having any valid evidence of the faults is irresponsible.
The failure of those two German mathematicians should not stop serious researchers to study IUT.
The failure of Mrs. Lancaster to understand the question does not in any way imply anything negative about the question.

4. Developments. Several are mentioned above.
The book by F. Kato about IUT provides more general information about various features of IUT to the wider audience.
This book was in the list of top twenty bestselling books in all subject areas on amazon.co.jp and was awarded the Yaesu prize.
There are new developments related to IUT, in different directions.
Four international workshops on anabelian geometry and IUT are organised during a special RIMS Project Research year on Expanding Horizons of Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory in 2020?2021 18, supported by the new Center for Research in Next-Generation Geometry.
(引用終り)
以上

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1573769803/228

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

ぬこの手ぬこTOP 0.039s