20/04/25 17:57:03.99 b0fzLo6k.net
下記ね、”This paper of Joshi”をこき下ろしているのだが
これ見て、Joshi さんが、「ごらぁ～！」と怒鳴り込んで、反論してバトルになって
それにショルツ先生も参加してバトルしてくれると、面白いね、ヤジウマとしてはｗ（＾＾；
＜参考：本スレ Inter-universal geometry と ABC予想 51 より＞
ｽﾚﾘﾝｸ(math板:202番)
202 名前：１３２人目の素数さん[] 投稿日：2020/04/25(土) 13:33:18.30 ID:nULhaJry
よくわからないけど、この人のコメントによると全然だめらしいね
URLﾘﾝｸ(www.math.columbia.edu)
Fierce Inertia says:
April 24, 2020 at 10:48 am
This paper of Joshi is remarkably unconvincing to me. If I may caricature it slightly, it seems to only contain the following types of results:
1. Statements of the form “(Thing X / Property Y) depends only on the absolute Galois group of a p-adic field.”
None of these are surprising or difficult: they all follow from basic class field theory or from the Jannsen-Wingberg theorem (which IS a difficult result, cf. here for a nice overview: URLﾘﾝｸ(www.numdam.org))
2. Statements of the form “(Thing X / Property Y) does not depend only on the absolute Galois group of a p-adic field.”
These are even less surprising, and they also follow from Jannsen-Wingberg, or from five seconds of thought.
3. Completely unmotivated results (e.g. Theorem 16.5, Theorem 22.6).
4. Vague suggestions that various things can be interpreted anabelomorphically.
What evidence is there here that this perspective of anabelomorphy is actually useful? What can you DO with it? The answer this paper seems to suggest is: nothing.
I am happy to be convinced otherwise.
(引用終り)