WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 10751002

(no title)

williamjennings | 10 years ago

I just learned about Math 55 and would trade plenty to teach that course.

The problem here is that Mochizuki uses too many German Nazi references.

Those people had no academic integrity whatsoever; and their works are exclusively stolen, through war crimes and the Holocaust.

After you do the right thing, and translate Mochizuki's nomenclature into French and Slavic; the proof is no longer valid, and the problem is negligible.

For the record, Oswald Teichmüller is a fraudulent Nazi war criminal who robbed Felix Hausdorff during the Holocaust.

The undeniable fact that Oswald Teichmüller is solely published in a journal of racial propaganda makes Mochizuki's choice of terminology questionable at the very least.

The fact that I am being suppressed for this demonstrates unambiguously that Mochizuki's proof is nothing more than media hype and puffery.

discuss

order

MatekCopatek|10 years ago

I can agree with this being extremely problematic in a political sense - it's horribly wrong to rip someone off, even more so by robbing them during wartime. Quoting such stolen material is a kind of passive support and should not be tolerated.

BUT - how does that affect it from a purely scientific perspective? Is the quoted stolen material also incorrect? Because it would be equally bad, IMHO, to ignore an important and correct scientific finding just because it was produced in an unacceptable way.

If I exaggerate a bit, it's similar to someone experimenting on babies to discover a cure for AIDS - sure, they're a terrible person and should not receive praise/compensation for their discovery, their actions should be condemned. But should we also throw away the discovered cure?

ashleyblackmore|10 years ago

Interesting how Teichmueller has a bunch of stuff named after him, yet there's very little information about him to be had. There are some references on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=%22o+teichmueller%22&btn.... He is certainly published in more than a single journal, however.

However there are no references to him on his "discoveries". Note the lack of a history section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teichm%C3%BCller_space and compare that to the section on Hilbert space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space#History

On the other hand, Felix Hausdorff, who also appears to have worked in the same field (though topology is probably a far broader field than I can understand) has plenty of information readily available. This is conjecture, but the mere lack of solid information on Teichmueller could lend credence to some of what you say.

There is a book about mathematics under the Nazis, which would likely cover a lot of ground http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453494?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

Anyway, bit of a mystery ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

late2part|10 years ago

Sounds to me like you are putting a political-correctness test or lens on what should be a mathematical and science based issue.

Shame on you for bringing subjective issues into an objective issue.