
Mochizuki Workshop at Oxford - subnaught
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8160
======
quanticle
Also, the blog post buries the lede somewhat. I found that this was the most
important bit:

    
    
        Update: Turns out the “unexpectedly positive” was a reaction to day 3, 
        which covered pre-IUT material. Today, when things turned to the IUT stuff, 
        it did not go well at all. See the link in the comments from lieven le bruyn 
        to a report from Felipe Voloch. Unfortunately it now looks quite possible 
        that the end result of this workshop will be a consensus that the IUT part 
        of this story is just hopelessly impenetrable.
    

So while there was an early sense of optimism that the gathered mathematicians
would be able to find some way through the papers at the beginning of the
week, it seems that optimism has soured as the week progressed.

------
mherrmann
Science is about publishing results that others can reproduce and check.
Failing to make a theory accessible to the world experts (!) in the field is
about as useful as not having the theory at all. Despite what some introvert
mathematicians may think, science necessarily involves other humans.

If I were one of the experts I would give it that one week and if nothing
interesting comes up stop wasting my time on it.

~~~
Certhas
The situation is more complex though. Most people seem to not have gotten
anything out of this workshop:

[https://plus.google.com/106680226131440966362/posts](https://plus.google.com/106680226131440966362/posts)

But Mochizuki was answering questions. And its not like there is absolutely no
progress. Quoting from the day 5 summary:

> I felt that Dupuy was the one that made the most progress learning the
> stuff. He told me afterwards that he indeed made progress but is nowhere
> done yet. He also told me he would take Mochizuki up on his offer and
> continue to work on understanding the work.

------
Jerry2
The link to the paper mentioned in the post is broken. Here's the actual link:
[http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/kimm/papers/pre-
iutt.pdf](http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/kimm/papers/pre-iutt.pdf)

~~~
minor0
The link is correct. See [http://mathoverflow.net/questions/195841/what-is-
an-%C3%A9ta...](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/195841/what-is-
an-%C3%A9tale-theta-function?lq=1) The actual content of Minhyong Kim's
report, which is offline for now, is also available here:
[https://twitter.com/math_jin/status/675827194489278464](https://twitter.com/math_jin/status/675827194489278464)

