2018 Fields Medal Peter Scholze - Professor, University of Bonn - ICM 2018
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2018
- IMPA professor Roberto Oliveira sits down with Peter Scholze for ICM TV to hear about his game-changing work in perfectoid spaces and fractal structures, as well as new research using his techniques in p-adic geometry to work towards Local Langlands Correspondence for reductive groups.
Наука
original mathematician like Alexander grothendick
IMO legend
Great work..we are very proud of you
I loved math until greek letters were introduced into the equation
He actually understood and wrote a counter proof to a 500 page proof that is considered so difficult only a few people in the world understand it. Amazing what the human brain is capable of, especially when introduced to certain subjects early in childhood brain development.
WispyDude Are you talking about Mochizuki’s proof of ABC? Can you link to the counter proof?
@Mer Kin I disagree strongly on this one. Mathematics is the study of axioms and their consequences and it has been since its beginnings (Euclids Elements). There is no guarantee that any of these consequences will have any use in our physical universe, because axioms are chosen by our interests. As it turns out, most mathematics, as abstract as you like, has become incredibly useful in our real world, eg. robotics, ai, cryptography, everything in relation to physical processes, computers, ee and so on. Now these applications have become, for the most part, useful way after their mathematical development. So no one can tell if Peter Scholzes work will have immediate applications to our physical universe, but it is definitely not useless. The reason only a handful of people understand this abstract number theory is partly because only some are interested in it, but for the most part smarter than anyone else. You can pretend that if you were interested in his work, that you would understand it, but that is just being arrogant and uneducated.
he and Stix found a flaw in the proof, once you have it you can write a counterproof.
@@2funky4u88 because axioms are chosen by our interests.
because axioms are chosen by our interests.
because axioms are chosen by our interests.
because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.because axioms are chosen by our interests.
Ich habe auch einen Formel, ich meine es ernst.
Hahhahha