22/12/16 16:06:01.87 O1LgbhHa.net
未だにcontroversialなIU幾何やABC予想に関する会話のサロンとして使って下さい。
荒らしはご遠慮願います
応援スレとの棲み分けにより、懐疑的な意見も歓迎です
関係者の匿名的な論理的擁護も歓迎です
前スレ
Inter-universal geometry とABC 予想52
ｽﾚﾘﾝｸ(math板)
1070:１３２人目の素数さん
23/01/29 18:55:48.62 hcMZz0Gi.net
結論
On the other hand, the names of the committee at PRIMS that approved the paper were published with the paper.
Those mathematicians agreed to publicly put their reputation behind an approval of the proof. It seems to me that they’re the ones who need to provide an explanation.
They have decided based on some argument that Scholze-Stix are wrong and the consensus of the arithmetic geometry community is wrong.
What is that argument? Is it Mochizuki’s argument that Scholze-Stix are incompetent? Is it something else?
If it’s based on a report from a referee, they should be able to provide the substantive part of that report, stripped of the identity of the referee.
I think it’s extremely implausible that there is an anonymous referee who has a convincing counter-argument to Scholze-Stix, but that everyone involved in this is keeping it secret.
On the other hand, it’s unfortunately plausible that the referees agreeing to approve the proof were people who might have reason to fear significant career implications if they took a stand that the proof was incorrect.
The proof should have been refereed by an independent journal and independent editors, not by Mochizuki’s colleagues at RIMS.
1071:1001
Over 1000 Thread.net
このスレッドは１０００を超えました。
新しいスレッドを立ててください。
life time: 44日 2時間 49分 47秒
1072:過去ログ ★
[過去ログ]
■ このスレッドは過去ログ倉庫に格納されています