Thread 16749181

Why do mathematicians hesitate so much to debunk obvious bullshit?
>Atiyah claims to have solved Riemann
>publishes a """proof""" where he talks about esoteric numerology and fucking Todd functions
>Mochizuki spends a DECADE grifting about having solved ABC
>two guys try to debunk him and none of the other specialists will discuss him
Are they just shy? Is there some culture that saying "that's retarded" is unacceptable to mathematicians?

>>16749181 (OP)
>i dont understand it so it must be wrong
go back frog poster

>>16749181 (OP)
If someone ignores you, even when you're barking up and down like a poodle on a trampoline for almost 13 years, it's not hesitance, it's a very clear signal that they aren't interested.

>>16749181 (OP)
>debunk
Hello, moron. Please review your dictionary entries until you find the word you were supposed to use.

What do we know?
>abc has nothing to do with integers
True, it's elliptic curve fags pushing themselves into the sea
>yes, but wiles did a thing
False, his thing isn't a proof on integers
>are you saying fermat's last hasn't been
Are you saying it has?

>>16749181 (OP)
Because every mathematician knows about the story of this nibba.

>>16749319
Twink af.

>>16749328
Imagine those lips blowing on your organ with the force of 2^2^5 units per unit

>>16749349
I told you to go in a corner you fing nerd lmao

>>16749181 (OP)
Nobody took Atiyah’s proof seriously. The poor guy obviously had mental issues due to his age at that point. Mochizuki’s shit is so obscure that nobody cares. Oh, and Nash also famously gave a “proof” of the Riemann conjecture after which he was diagnozed with schizophrenia. At this point the Riemann conjecture won’t get proven just because it has the schizo stamp on it. It’s the new Fermat’s last theorem.

>>16749248
tzd

>>16749181 (OP)
well, atiyah has earned his merit and having earned your merit gives you special privileges that exempts you from being called out as a bullshitter when you lose your marbles. mochizuki's case is different because the level of abstractions in his research is not too far off from what other mathematicians are doing or implicitly using, so questioning the jumbling with universes would be incoherent when you're doing something similar or have been haphazardly using similar mathematics perhaps ignoring underlying foundational / ontological / epistemologically issues.

>>16749181 (OP)
Atiyah had a career full of successes and ended his life with dementia. As a mathematician it would make sense he would publish some crank proof before he died. The average demented person might attempt to do the same, but he's remembered for it because he had already given so much and was in a position of authority.

>>16749181 (OP)
Didn't Atiyah claim it is unprovable either way?
Probably a meta strategy to steer young people away from it to not waste their time.
For all we know it has been solved but it is more valuable/useful to not go public to get the $1M. Could be a trap.
Better to stay away from it in my opinion.
THEY have their bigger picture reasons.

>>16750193
You can prove the Riemann conjecture by showing it cannot be proven or disproven within ZFC Gödel style. If it cannot be disproven, then no counterexample exists. QED.

>>16750729
bait? if the "existence" of something is independent of a formal theory, then in particular you cannot conclude that it "doesn’t exist because if it was to exist, it would violate independence" because the independence itself is not a derived sentence in the formal theory but a mathematical insight about the formal theory, which a priori cannot be used within the formaly theory. you assume that you inject all mathematical insights about a formal theory as derived sentences into it, but in order to obtain mathematical insights about it, you have to fix it and any reflection of proof of a statement about it, if it all possible with the given expressiveness of the formal theory at hand, only yields a derivation of a sentence which semantically says something about a formal theory within the formal theory at hand because you would have to reflect the formalization process as well and that's just not the same as sentence which semantically says something about the formal theory within it lives itself.

>>16749181 (OP)
>Are they just shy?
Kinda. The Cambridge analytical school and it's consequences were a disaster for mathematical research, and one of the ways in which it was a disaster is instilling tendency for "not making a fuss" as a very important virtue for a mathematician in the predominant culture of most mathematical communities.

Lots of mathematicians dislike each other, but they are conditioned to believe that it is severely impolite to actually attack each other's works in publications. Seeing how clinically autistic they get when they do decide to take a go at it, this form of etiquette almost makes sense.

>>16750789
Nta but he's right. The only way the Riemann Hypothesis could be independent of ZFC is if there are "non-standard" zeroes which exist outside the critical line in some models but not the minimal model. Such zeroes would necessarily be outside what we *mean* by the complex numbers and are ruled out as a matter of course, so an independence proof would simply be a proof.
Examine the independence of Goodstein's theorem from PA for an intuition pump.

>>16750799
it is indeed important to self-tard wrangle

They're debunking it by not validating it, no proof is worth anything if it hasn't been peer reviewed.
Also they probably know that spending your time debunking something is a waste when you could use it trying to prove something instead.

>>16749181 (OP)
>Atiyah
He was clearly senile and everybody was just hoping a loved one would help him stop making a fool of himself
>Mochizuki
If you have a problem with his proof, feel free to point out the mistake

>>16753956
tl;dr
by design

nobody in math is trying to prove other people wrong
if something doesnt make sense it is called "a quirk of mathematics"

>>16749181 (OP)
With a few exceptions, virtually all mathematicians write terribly. Sometimes I suspect being obscure is a goal. When people check whether an article is correct it is not enough to say "this is obviously wrong/nonsense" because author will say "this is a minor omission, fixing it is routine", you have to say "this approach can not possibly work, no matter how much you tinker with it" and give arguments as to why. That requires a lot of domain expertise. Mochizuki proof was allegedly criticized with a criticism of the second type. Mochizuki's response is to call them poo-poo heads that didn't understand what he was writing. I have no idea who is right, but I know damn well I don't want to spend years trying to understand what some Japanese weirdo writes after huffing enough of the good stuff.

>>16753998
>With a few exceptions, virtually all mathematicians write terribly.
Name an exception and link to a doi.

>>16754001
I don't want to dox myself, I worked on some super niche stuff on my postdoc. There's like one dude that actually writes clearly in all the literature I was reviewing and it's not like he was doing some boring technical stuff, he's actually super creative. You can tell he actually spends effort to make the writing be simple and easy to understand. Everyone else wrote absolute garbage, it was often simpler to redo what they were doing myself if I wanted to actually understand it.

>>16753967
I actually don't recognize Wiles' proof for the same reason. And I'm probably alone in that. But if you can't prove something about integers without rewriting it into elliptic curves, no, you didn't prove anything about integers, all you proved was something about how integers can or can't be rewritten into elliptic curves. Mochizuki is just an even more extreme example of this logic.

>>16754005
Sorry, that was an unfair question. Link to a doi you've read that was written by someone you have no Kevin Bacon number to but who doesn't write terribly. I'm not even saying it doesn't exist, I'd just like an example to see whether or not I agree.

>>16754008
I'm probably just being paranoid. Here's the example I had in mind, try not to send pizza to my house, ok?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.02319

>>16754012
Got it and will read. Feel free to delete the link now, if having it be there is poking the back corner of your mind.

>>16754007
>But if you can't prove something about integers without rewriting it into elliptic curves
Bro, the thing to prove with Fermat was pretty much already a statement about elliptic curves. Go away.

>>16754007
filtered hard lmao
>noooo you cannot do interdisciplinary proofs
Guess things like homological algebra and Galois theory are all spooks huh..

>>16754043
>>16754105
The thing about Fermat, as you call it, was to prove whether some integer exponent could satisfy a series of integer bases.

>>16754119
An elliptic curve is an equation y^2z=x^3+axz^2+bz^3, find the integer solutions on x,y,z and you're now doing number theory. Both Fermat last theorem and elliptic curves are equations, and you're finding integer solutions. There's absolutely no issue there.

>>16754130
That's not how the "proof" works.

>>16754138
From a fermat solution (a,b,c) you get a pair (a',b') that defines an elliptic curve, then a galois representation, which is more or less an action of an important arithmetic group on some set of arithmetic solutions of the elliptic curves, then come modular forms (which encodes, you guessed it, more arithmetic data), and then a couple of extra steps and you're done. All of it just packs arithmetic data in some convenient form.

>>16754157
Yes, I actually understand how it works (or I think I do, and was given a degree by very brilliant people who also think or thought I do) I just don't get how it's meaningful to how integers work, not in any way.

>>16754171
Ask for a refund

>>16754172
It was free.

>>16754175
Ask for damages for the opportunity cost.

>>16754178
Why?

>>16754183
Because you clearly wasted your time.

>>16754184
Time isn't cheap.

>>16754186
>dude le hustle
What are you doing on this board?

>>16754187
I like science, what are you doing

>>16754188
You clearly like the hustle, not the science. Science is about thinking about stuff while idling. Do you think Newton and Dirac neurotically obsessed about le opportunity costs?

>>16754189
How could I like the hustle and be here.

>>16754190
That’s what I’m asking. Go watch Tate tiktoks or something.

>>16754191
Just tell me how an elliptic curve proof could say something about integers that you can't prove with integers. Hmm. Yeah, I'll wait lol

>>16754193
If you cannot connect the dots, then you got filtered. The other anon explained it perfectly. Rings of polynomials over the integers as opposed to reals are like baby’s first course in algebra.

>>16754197
1. That has nothing to do with Wiles's proof
2. how do "rings of polys" prove anything about integers?

>>16754200
Z[x,y] is a ring of bivariate polynomials over the ring of integers Z. Go pick up a basic undergrad textbook on algebra before claiming you understand Wiles’ proof.

>>16754202
So? Point out how that's relevant to the proof and maybe I'll indulge you. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2118559
If not, you'll fade away and I'll be right. No proof exists that FLT has been proven in any way beyond a proof that says integers can't be forced into an elliptic curve without damaging what we can prove about them.

>>16754206
Maybe go learn the basics? If you’re asking how polynomial rings are relevant to elliptic curves, then you’ve got a long way to go.

>>16754208
I'm asking you to say how polynomial rings matter. Just type out, now, any polynomial that shows you understand what the proof claims it's saying.

>>16754209
I can only point to textbooks, because I ain’t giving you a multiple semester course for free. Try Serre’s Course in Arithmetic for example.

>>16754211
Lol.

>>16749181 (OP)
If you solve riemann, does that mean you collecte a million bucks or something?

>>16754216
Some nigger solved that shit on this board and kept proving it for 10 years, then got swatted by black people, most of whom were his friends, for no reason

If you're outside the academic math institutions, you'll find it very hard to be taken seriously at first because for every Ramanupoo there are five thousand Tookers.
Your best bet if you're actually preternaturally gifted in math is to make a splash with something that can't be ignored and that can be verified in seconds with a software tool, like a cryptological break. The institutional golems can ignore your schizo-tier arXiv PDF debut, but they can't ignore challenge keys being broken and posted everywhere or hashes being collided to fuck or whatever.

>>16754219
>t. least gullible 4chud

>>16754222
Or you can just get a good score on a standardized test and understand that you're there not because you have something special to say but because you're being selected, intentionally, as someone who doesn't have some special to say.

>>16754219
I'm pretty sure it's been proven here and written off as schizo babble than posted seriously on /r/math

>>16754226
He has a name in his death.

>>16754228
No one thinks he didn't solve it, they just think he didn't solve it in an integer sort of way.

>>16754007
>I actually don't recognize Wiles' proof for the same reason.
Absolutely based and trollpilled.
Wiles failed because he didn't constrain himself to the math available to Fermat.
The problem is still open.

>>16754256
That's not why, we all have better math than he did, but yes, the problem is still open.

>>16754252
>No one thinks he didn't solve it
i, as a matter of fact, do think that he didn't solve it

>>16754808
I don't think you can prove a difference in the badness of the proof, how bad their respective proofs are, between Tooker's RH proof and Wiles' proof of FLT. Neither of them solved something in the other's language.

>>16749700
Personally, I think it's because Riemann's zeta is an involution on a specific complex extension of the Collatz function and proving Riemann is the same as proving Collatz is the same as proving that all math is ultimate used for war, which is why Perelman rejected the accolades.
source: I got hospitalized twice for psychotic episodes this year.

>>16754815
I also don't think Riemann knew Collatz in a way that would that anything about that timeline work.

>>16754821
That's great, thank you for your response!

>>16754825
Yw. Hope it helped answer the question you asked

>>16754827
I didn't ask a question, I just vagueposted about math and mental health. Which question did you perceive me asking?

>>16754829
>Personally, I think it's because Riemann's zeta is an involution on a specific complex extension of the Collatz function and proving Riemann is the same as proving Collatz is the same as proving that all math is ultimate used for war, which is why Perelman rejected the accolades.
I said it in fewer words, without making that the point, why not do that?

>>16754833
So you're saying I shouldn't have added the reference to repeat hospitalization because then the reference to the repeat hospitalization -- which I put there as a humorous detail to indicate that the connection between Riemann's zeta and Collatz' function more likely than not doesn't hold up rigorously -- would not have been included, which would have made the post shorter? How does that relate to whether Riemann knew off Collatz' function or not, when Riemann didn't construct his zeta as an involution on an extension of Collatz' function? Which timeline are we even talking about? Should I just leave..?
Please help me understand, anon.

>>16754842
Don't leave.

>>16754945
okay papi

>>16749181 (OP)
takes time gotta sift through other people's bullshit. ain't nobody got time for that. they'll use AI when it gets good enough