mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Science & Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-09-10, 16:36   #1
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

1110101010102 Posts
Default Latest abc conjecture proof news

(nature.com) Proof claimed for deep connection between primes
Quote:
If it is true, a solution to the abc conjecture about whole numbers would be an ‘astounding’ achievement.
This link does a Google search selecting the last 24 hours: "ABC conjecture" proof.

blogs:
On, Not Even Wrong. Proof of the abc Conjecture?:
Quote:
Jordan Ellenberg at Quomodocumque reports here on a potential breakthrough in number theory, a claimed proof of the abc conjecture by Shin Mochizuki. More than five years ago I wrote a posting with the same title, reporting on a talk by Lucien Szpiro claiming a proof of this conjecture (the proof soon was found to have a flaw). One change over the last five years is that now there are excellent Wikipedia articles about mathematically important questions like this conjecture, so you should consult the Wikipedia article for more details on the mathematics of the conjecture. To get some idea of the significance of this, that article quotes my colleague and next-door office neighbor Dorian Goldfeld describing the conjecture as “the most important unsolved problem in Diophantine analysis”, i.e. for a very significant part of number theory.
The first link in that quote is for Quomondocumque, Mochizuki on ABC, where there is high level commentary.

mathoverflow: Philosophy behind Mochizuki’s work on the ABC conjecture

Last fiddled with by only_human on 2012-09-10 at 17:24 Reason: updated search URL. Added blog quote and links. I intended to place this thread in misc. math
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-11, 07:13   #2
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

7×1,423 Posts
Default

This could turn out to be wonderful news! It may be the most important proof of the 21st century. No kidding. It worth a separate topic here.

Now my question is what should be the effect of this for Beal's Conjecture, and the bonus of 200k bucks.

Certainly if the ABC conjecture is true (and most probably it is, regardless of the fact if the current proof turns out to be correct or to have flaws), then there are only a finite number of solutions for Beal's problem. The award however is given for a specific solution (i.e. counterexample), or a proof that NONE exists. Proving that there are not many and that there is none is not the same thing.

Anyhow, certainly our don blazys totally lost his chance to prove it and take the money and the glory...
[edit: I am a bit nostalgic to this subject, I played with Beal's conjecture myself for a while, without any result, and this is how I came to mersenneforum.org, one of my friends pointed me to "the best source of fun i read in the last time" (his words, unfortunately he never posts here, but occasionally reading only, he says posting on forums is wasting of time), and there was my first post on this forum].

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2012-09-11 at 07:28
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-11, 09:10   #3
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

2×1,877 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Now my question is what should be the effect of this for Beal's Conjecture, and the bonus of 200k bucks.
Dunno. Wikipedia has this list of consequences: abc conjecture#Some_consequences
Quote:
The abc conjecture has a large number of consequences. These include both known results, and conjectures for which it gives a conditional proof.While the first group of these have now been proven, the abc conjecture itself remains of interest, because of its numerous links with deep questions in number theory.
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-11, 18:22   #4
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

26×103 Posts
Default

How about this:

Unified Theory or Matter
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-11, 19:04   #5
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

22×3×941 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
How about this:

Unified Theory or Matter
Hmm. Interesting. I need to find out how this differs from previous attempts to add a scalar field to Einstein's field equations. AFAIK, previous attempts have either failed to be consistent with observations or have had only small and thus-far undetectable consequences, an example of the latter being the Brans-Dicke theory.
xilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-14, 19:57   #6
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

22·3·941 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Hmm. Interesting. I need to find out how this differs from previous attempts to add a scalar field to Einstein's field equations. AFAIK, previous attempts have either failed to be consistent with observations or have had only small and thus-far undetectable consequences, an example of the latter being the Brans-Dicke theory.
The paper looks fairly straightforward. Nicely written, anyway, though I don't follow all of it in any detail.

The basic assumption is that of the existence of scalar field \varphi which couples to the curvature to produce a modified gravitational field. \varphi is assumed to have zero divergence over the universe so, if not constant, must have both repulsive and attractive components, corresponding to dark energy and dark matter respectively. What I don't yet understand is why the two components aren't of equal magnitude. Observation suggests that dark energy is greater by a factor of several.

A nice point is that solutions to the modified field equations exist with T00 non-zero. This, the time-time component of the stress-energy tensor, is identified with the energy density of the CMB.

Not yet seen anything grossly wrong with the theory, though I wouldn't expect to, and look forward to more sensitive tests of it.
xilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-02, 11:52   #7
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

26×103 Posts
Default

Another claim for proof of Goldbach's Conjecture

I have not read the article yet, but the mathematician behind it does not appear to be a crank.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Claimed proof of the ABC conjecture (Zha, 2009) R.D. Silverman Math 6 2019-04-22 00:03
Collatz Conjecture Proof Steve One Miscellaneous Math 21 2018-03-08 08:18
yet another 'proof' of the legendary conjecture guptadeva Miscellaneous Math 69 2018-01-03 05:52
The Beal Conjecture Proof Arxenar Miscellaneous Math 1 2013-09-07 09:59
Proof of Goldbach Conjecture vector Miscellaneous Math 5 2007-12-01 14:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:25.


Thu May 19 09:25:54 UTC 2022 up 35 days, 7:27, 0 users, load averages: 1.98, 1.91, 1.81

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔