By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

(Cross-posted at M-Phi)

Here's a short piece by the New Scientist on the status of Mochizuki's purported proof of the ABC conjecture. More than 2 years after the 500-page proof has been made public, the mathematical community still hasn't been able to decide whether it's correct or not. (Recall my post on this from May 2013; little change seems to have taken place since then.)

Going back to my dialogical conception of mathematical proofs as involving a proponent who formulates the proof and opponents who must check it, this stalemate can be viewed from at least two perspectives: either Mochizuki is not trying hard enough as a proponent, or the mathematical community is not trying hard enough as opponent.

[Mochizuki] has also criticised the rest of the community for not studying his work in detail, and says most other mathematicians are "simply not qualified" to issue a definitive statement on the proof unless they start from the very basics of his theory.

Some mathematicians say Mochizuki must do more to explain his work, like simplifying his notes or lecturing abroad.

(Of course, it may well be that both are the case!). And so for now, the proof remains in limbo, as well put by the New Scientist piece. Mathematics, oh so human!

Posted in ,

5 responses to “Mochizuki’s proof of the ABC conjecture: still “in limbo””

  1. Patrick S. O'Donnell Avatar

    It seems we need an intervention from outside the mathematical community, perhaps a janitor at MIT, like Will Hunting.

    Like

  2. Allan Olley Avatar

    Well I said a lot about this in response to your post back in 2013, but I would just add it strikes me that at least some prominent proofs (Wiles one of Fermat’s last theorem most prominently) started with a flawed version that was only revealed when others saw it and required a rethink before achieving rigour. It strikes me that Mochizuki’s method could if it has value still be subject ot the same kind of corrective process
    I also find myself sympathetic to the commentator who noted that the sort of drive and independence that makes Mochizuki deal with his colleagues this way may also be an element in his willingness to spend five years working through such complex material. I have a suspicion that the very factors that make one successful in a technical discipline can also make one vulnerable to problems. Although maybe the commentator and I are just justifying stereotypes about “genius”.

    Like

  3. postdocirritation Avatar
    postdocirritation

    why he does not simplify his work so others can understand what he says?
    it is easier to write complex than to simplify.

    Like

Leave a comment