This looks like a fever dream. Maybe putting actual verbal explanation instead of ambient music such as in annoying religious preaching videos would help understanding?
Finally, a video that clearly explains IUTT! I might have been slightly confused had he not included the slow parallelogram drawing, the rapidly flashing orange and yellow colors, and the Hearts of Space music. Those were all essential.
IUTT literally doesnt mathematically work. This animation is an attempt to fool people will an apparent "simple" representation. IUTT is entirely false.
There has been progress in understanding Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory (IUTT). After initial struggles with grasping the concepts due to their novelty and complexity, a more successful meeting in Kyoto, where Mochizuki explained his theory in person, led to a breakthrough. Ivan Fesenko has indicated that at least ten people now understand the theory in detail, and the papers are nearing the end of the peer review process. Jeffrey Lagarias acknowledges that there are people who comprehend various crucial parts of IUTT, and the incentive to understand the theory is growing, especially outside Japan . The anticipation is that Mochizuki’s work will solve many open problems in number theory, but the full impact of his ideas will take decades to be realized due to the magnitude and novelty of the concepts involved.
I think the best explanation ordinary people can possibly hope to have of this theory is this: This is a theoretical framework of number theory in which it may be possible to infer certain mathematical truths and relationships that otherwise would be impossible in the standard realm of logic and math that uses "normal" number theory. And the KEY point is that it may be possible to LINK certain things that are true in the conceptual framework to the framework of reality, thus proving actually useful. But any more than that, all I could tell you is it's something to do with working in some sort of weird non-euclidian multi-dimensional space of values and numbers and it's just way too complex to understand
@Évariste Galois I don't think that maxim is true in mathematics. Some things cannot be simplified, or at least would only seem simple to someone with more context than a single vanguard theoretician could be expected to provide. It's possible Mochizuki is a hack or an obscurantist. That may also be true of string theorists or quantum physicists or whatever. It doesn't make mathematical insights any less "profound" because they are not at all exoteric.
Kristaps Balodis I'm not a mathematician so I can't really judge, but I don't doubt he's a genius and I'd like to be optimistic about IUTT if only because it sounds nutty
Any status on Theorem 3.12 (might've been a Corollary instead)? That was the flaw Scholze said he found in the ABC proof, and I've more heard of any attempt to fix it since. For those who do the know WTF this math is, it is a strange and largely impenetrable new branch of math invented by 1 expert to solve some problems in number theory and non-commutative geometry (think what happens to the colors as you mess with a Rubix Cube). Essentially in high level math you can define these alien-looking graphs that represent a kind of super abstract logic map, going from objects in one part of math to different objects in another (think something like a state machine graph in computer science). For example your graph might link some topology space to a kind of function in function analysis by going through a weird flavor of vector space in calculus. What this guy claims to have invented (kinda?) is a way of rigorously warping or distorting THAT MAP so you can identify hidden "close enough" A-to-B logic paths that are otherwise invisible. For example, known math might not let you show an exact path from A-to-B, but he claims his technique lets you show you can get from A to a point really close to B, and for some things that's all you actually need. "Interuniversal Teichmullet Theory" is just the strange name for this new graph warping theory. What Scholze claimed to find, in contrast, was an error in that IUT logic itself. According to him, the ultimate "end up nearby to B" can actually be arbitrarily far away, which means this whole system doesn't actually work. The problem is that this guy deliberately dialed up the impenetrable jargon to 12, and made sure to only teach it to a couple allies, making it really hard for everyone else to decisively call him out. If you're curious you can google up about it. It's a major ongoing sh-show in the pure math part of academia.
If many mathematicians would get unreasonably angry and refuse even to just for a short moment consider/question whether or not Gödel's assumptions into Completeness and Incompleteness theses are indeed valid, why should they expect to be treated differently, when they want to question about IUT theory or any alleged proof thereof? What comes around goes around, it's often said. Caveat: This however doesn't mean to say the alleged proof of the ABC conjecture is correct or incorrect.
This is Mochizuki's latest paper. ON THE ESSENTIAL LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF INTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY IN TERMS OF LOGICAL AND “∧”/LOGICAL OR “∨” RELATIONS: REPORT ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE FOUR MAIN PAPERS ON INTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Essential%20Logical%20Structure%20of%20Inter-universal%20Teichmuller%20Theory.pdf
as an undergraduate this makes so much more sense after reading his paper on analogies between IUTT and the multiradial gaussian integral. This visualization finally seems intelligible to me haha.
@@Alexander_Tronstad Mochizuki wrote a paper, google "NTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY: A PROGRESS REPORT", you only need Calculus 3 to understand the analogy but you won't understand any of the theory ofc. A Gaussian integral in 2D can be calculated by "multiradially" calculating the 3D integral. One of the aims of IUTT is to find the connection between addition and multiplication through finite fields (sets bounded by addition/multiplication and an identity/ inverse for both operators) and the connection of a bunch of new mathematical structures that Shinichi discovered/invented through this idea of "multiradiallity". Just as one would use a Jacobian to convert polar and cartesian coordinates, Shinichi believes there is a direct mapping between the "addition" and "multiplication" operators of mathematics.
Thanks I simplifed it to scalars for Americans, but I had to start my own "Virtual Prime Set Theory" which cross links to Collatz Conjecture thru my "Axioms of Virtual Primogenitor!" which are based on the "Virtual Newtonian Physics Models."
Was this made using 3B1B’s software? I’m sure he’d be proud to see it’s being put to good use-creating clear, approachable visualizations of mathematical proofs.
hahahahahha, I'm an electronic engineer, I asked myself the same question long ago..... I couldn't understand this papers at all, but I got the gist and draw my limited interpretation.
Ah yes, it all makes sense now.
I fully understand it now.
@@heavenlyyaksha68 The pulsating red and yellow balls and tekst were really the key.
This looks like a fever dream.
Maybe putting actual verbal explanation instead of ambient music such as in annoying religious preaching videos would help understanding?
Watching this in my Θ-NF-Hodge theater.
i heard they all closed down for corona
fuck, I remember this phrase, on the first page, when I first open up that paper years ago...
Finally, a video that clearly explains IUTT!
I might have been slightly confused had he not included the slow parallelogram drawing, the rapidly flashing orange and yellow colors, and the Hearts of Space music. Those were all essential.
IUTT literally doesnt mathematically work. This animation is an attempt to fool people will an apparent "simple" representation. IUTT is entirely false.
The sarcasm is strong with this one
There has been progress in understanding Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory (IUTT). After initial struggles with grasping the concepts due to their novelty and complexity, a more successful meeting in Kyoto, where Mochizuki explained his theory in person, led to a breakthrough. Ivan Fesenko has indicated that at least ten people now understand the theory in detail, and the papers are nearing the end of the peer review process. Jeffrey Lagarias acknowledges that there are people who comprehend various crucial parts of IUTT, and the incentive to understand the theory is growing, especially outside Japan .
The anticipation is that Mochizuki’s work will solve many open problems in number theory, but the full impact of his ideas will take decades to be realized due to the magnitude and novelty of the concepts involved.
I study the humanities, its 3:10AM, and am not understanding anything - why am I here, and why do I find this so intriguing?
Aida Ismailova drugs for sure
Not really though
@@TealiaAida Turns out that most mathematicians don't understand it either.
This is that math that all the aliens in space movies know
Thanks, I use this video for teaching mathematics to my son and he totally understand it.
pathetic i taught my cat this when he was in my dogs womb
Don’t lie
IUTT is entirely wrong though so youre teaching your son fake math. LMfao what a dumbass, I feel bad for your kid having such a stupid parent.
@@TheRunobenYou mean lie algebras?
I think the best explanation ordinary people can possibly hope to have of this theory is this: This is a theoretical framework of number theory in which it may be possible to infer certain mathematical truths and relationships that otherwise would be impossible in the standard realm of logic and math that uses "normal" number theory. And the KEY point is that it may be possible to LINK certain things that are true in the conceptual framework to the framework of reality, thus proving actually useful. But any more than that, all I could tell you is it's something to do with working in some sort of weird non-euclidian multi-dimensional space of values and numbers and it's just way too complex to understand
Thanks!
ruclips.net/video/KlmPO2YW4DE/видео.html
Is This same as my video??
@Évariste Galois I don't think that maxim is true in mathematics. Some things cannot be simplified, or at least would only seem simple to someone with more context than a single vanguard theoretician could be expected to provide. It's possible Mochizuki is a hack or an obscurantist. That may also be true of string theorists or quantum physicists or whatever. It doesn't make mathematical insights any less "profound" because they are not at all exoteric.
@@looc546 Mochizuki is certainly not a hack. One could argue he's an obscurant in regards to IUTT, but he has down significant work outside of IUTT.
Kristaps Balodis I'm not a mathematician so I can't really judge, but I don't doubt he's a genius and I'd like to be optimistic about IUTT if only because it sounds nutty
Any status on Theorem 3.12 (might've been a Corollary instead)? That was the flaw Scholze said he found in the ABC proof, and I've more heard of any attempt to fix it since.
For those who do the know WTF this math is, it is a strange and largely impenetrable new branch of math invented by 1 expert to solve some problems in number theory and non-commutative geometry (think what happens to the colors as you mess with a Rubix Cube). Essentially in high level math you can define these alien-looking graphs that represent a kind of super abstract logic map, going from objects in one part of math to different objects in another (think something like a state machine graph in computer science). For example your graph might link some topology space to a kind of function in function analysis by going through a weird flavor of vector space in calculus. What this guy claims to have invented (kinda?) is a way of rigorously warping or distorting THAT MAP so you can identify hidden "close enough" A-to-B logic paths that are otherwise invisible. For example, known math might not let you show an exact path from A-to-B, but he claims his technique lets you show you can get from A to a point really close to B, and for some things that's all you actually need. "Interuniversal Teichmullet Theory" is just the strange name for this new graph warping theory.
What Scholze claimed to find, in contrast, was an error in that IUT logic itself. According to him, the ultimate "end up nearby to B" can actually be arbitrarily far away, which means this whole system doesn't actually work. The problem is that this guy deliberately dialed up the impenetrable jargon to 12, and made sure to only teach it to a couple allies, making it really hard for everyone else to decisively call him out. If you're curious you can google up about it. It's a major ongoing sh-show in the pure math part of academia.
If many mathematicians would get unreasonably angry and refuse even to just for a short moment consider/question whether or not Gödel's assumptions into Completeness and Incompleteness theses are indeed valid, why should they expect to be treated differently, when they want to question about IUT theory or any alleged proof thereof?
What comes around goes around, it's often said.
Caveat: This however doesn't mean to say the alleged proof of the ABC conjecture is correct or incorrect.
This is Mochizuki's latest paper.
ON THE ESSENTIAL LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF INTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY IN TERMS OF LOGICAL AND “∧”/LOGICAL OR “∨” RELATIONS: REPORT ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE FOUR MAIN PAPERS ON INTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY
www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Essential%20Logical%20Structure%20of%20Inter-universal%20Teichmuller%20Theory.pdf
Vaporwave mathematics?
nice to see 3blue1brown discovered how the universe works on an acid trip. good for him
as an undergraduate this makes so much more sense after reading his paper on analogies between IUTT and the multiradial gaussian integral. This visualization finally seems intelligible to me haha.
Okay. Any way you can convey just what the hell this is??
Does it? Jesus this is like staring into the eyes of god
yup i totally understand what the fuc is going on
@@Alexander_Tronstad Mochizuki wrote a paper, google "NTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY: A PROGRESS REPORT", you only need Calculus 3 to understand the analogy but you won't understand any of the theory ofc. A Gaussian integral in 2D can be calculated by "multiradially" calculating the 3D integral. One of the aims of IUTT is to find the connection between addition and multiplication through finite fields (sets bounded by addition/multiplication and an identity/ inverse for both operators) and the connection of a bunch of new mathematical structures that Shinichi discovered/invented through this idea of "multiradiallity". Just as one would use a Jacobian to convert polar and cartesian coordinates, Shinichi believes there is a direct mapping between the "addition" and "multiplication" operators of mathematics.
@@mechwarreir2 why’d he make it tho
Love this video. Don’t understand the math part at all tho. I come for the music/sounds in the vid
完全に理解した。
I want to understand more about this
Unfortunately the barrier for entry is having a PhD in anabelian geometry.
@@k-theory8604 ill get right on that lol, thanks BTW
Don't we all...
Theres a post on mathoverflow for all the prerequisites you need search it up
Thanks I simplifed it to scalars for Americans, but I had to start my own "Virtual Prime Set Theory" which cross links to Collatz Conjecture thru my "Axioms of Virtual Primogenitor!" which are based on the "Virtual Newtonian Physics Models."
Was this made using 3B1B’s software? I’m sure he’d be proud to see it’s being put to good use-creating clear, approachable visualizations of mathematical proofs.
なにがわからないのかわからない
なるほど
Thank you! I still don't understand but I feel closer !!
Rafa Spoladore, where can I find more info about this? (except wikipedia)
www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Inter-universal%20Teichmuller%20Theory%20I.pdf
出会いと別れ、natureとphysis,結婚と兄弟
I showed this to my dog and now he is a log
I only come here for the music
oh, so easy to understand!
hmmm, yeah I read the paper and I think it makes sense. pack it up boys we did it we solved abc.
"...but first we need to talk about parallel universes."
数学者の頭の頭の中こんなんになってそう。
yeah it's all approved
I'm a geologist, wtf am I doing here?
hahahahahha, I'm an electronic engineer, I asked myself the same question long ago..... I couldn't understand this papers at all, but I got the gist and draw my limited interpretation.
ELI5?
First person to do that might get a fields medal
i wonder why i was watching this 3 years ago...@@Anonymous95202
Godlike world...
O'Reilly Forks
may as well not put it up
bruh, this is too fukin scary :(
Aye, i got it
AAAAAh my hheaaaad
Nonsense
WTF!!!
Why use such overbearing notation... It's such an elitist thing to do
What would the simple notation be ?
@@trulylastog26671+1=2? duh