0
$\begingroup$

So I have a question. Why is Shinichi Mochizuki's proof on the conjecture still not accepted? It has been 6 years, surely there must be some approval or disapproval regarding his proof?

Can anyone please tell me whats going on with his proof in the mathematical community?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ There was a burst of discussion back in December 2017 (see here and follow links) but I haven't heard anything since then. This blog post had especially interesting comments from some notable mathematicians: galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/… $\endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jul 13, 2018 at 16:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In short, it's very esoteric, almost entirely novel, and seems to come out of nowhere--- that is, there are no corollaries or other minor results, useful lemmas, clear plans of attack (cf. Perelman's proof), etc. That certainly doesn't mean that Mochizuki is a crackpot by any means, by it's hard to claim that what he wrote constitutes a proof. $\endgroup$
    – anomaly
    Jul 13, 2018 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ One problem is utility. Does the proof lead to any new results? The recent chromatic number of the plane proof led to many new results within days. In six years, the Mochizuki proof hasn't given a single nice new example for a+b=c. $\endgroup$
    – Ed Pegg
    Jul 13, 2018 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the links and suggestions. $\endgroup$ Jul 18, 2018 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ In case you weren't aware of it, there has been some additional activity this month (September 2018), which resulted from interaction between Peter Scholze and Jakob Stix with Mochizuki earlier this year (March 2018). Several detailed comments have been posted by both parties. One good starting point to follow this discussion is the most recent answer given at MathOverflow on this topic (from 09/21/2018). $\endgroup$ Sep 22, 2018 at 18:23

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .