A purported new mathematics proof is impenetrable – now what?

December 22, 2015 by Kevin Knudson, The Conversation
Wait, what was that? You lost me. Credit: www.shutterstock.com.

What happens when someone claims to have proved a famous conjecture? Well, it depends. When a paper is submitted, the journal editor will pass it off to a respected expert for examination. That referee will then scan the paper looking for a significant new idea. If there isn't one, then the whole argument is unlikely to get much more scrutiny.

But if there is a kernel of a new approach, it will be checked carefully. Additional experts may be consulted. Eventually the mathematics community may reach consensus that the argument is correct and the becomes a theorem. This can happen outside the formal refereeing process thanks to preprint servers such as the arXiv, but in the end, enough expert referees have to give the work their imprimatur before the paper is finally published in a journal.

In my mathematical career, there have been a few such big announcements, the most well-known being Andrew Wiles' solution of Fermat's Last Theorem in 1994. Grigori Perelman's proof in 2003 of the Poincaré Conjecture comes to mind as well. Now a reclusive yet respected Japanese mathematician has put forth a solution to another notorious problem.

In those earlier examples, the stature of the mathematicians involved made other experts interested in verifying their results. But what if the proposed solution is impenetrable? What if it reads, as University of Wisconsin Math Professor Jordan Ellenberg put it on his blog, like mathematics from the future, full of new concepts and definitions that are disconnected from current language and techniques? If the author is relatively unknown it may be dismissed, or even ignored. But if the mathematician has a reputation for being careful and producing solid results, what then?

The ABC conjecture

Shinichi Mochizuki of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences at Kyoto University is such a mathematician. In August 2012, he posted a series of four papers on his personal web page claiming to prove the ABC conjecture, an important outstanding problem in number theory. A proof would have Fermat's Last Theorem as a consequence (at least for large enough exponents), and given the difficulty of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, we should expect a proof of the ABC conjecture to be similarly opaque.

The conjecture is fairly easy to state. Suppose we have three positive integers a,b,c satisfying a+b=c and having no prime factors in common. Let d denote the product of the distinct prime factors of the product abc. Then the conjecture asserts roughly there are only finitely many such triples with c > d. Or, put another way, if a and b are built up from small prime factors then c is usually divisible only by large primes.

Here's a simple example. Take a=16, b=21, and c=37. In this case, d = 2x3x7x37 = 1554, which is greater than c. The ABC conjecture says that this happens almost all the time. There is plenty of numerical evidence to support the conjecture, and most experts in the field believe it to be true. But it hasn't been mathematically proven – yet.

Enter Mochizuki. His papers develop a subject he calls Inter-Universal Teichmüller Theory, and in this setting he proves a vast collection of results that culminate in a putative proof of the ABC conjecture. Full of definitions and new terminology invented by Mochizuki (there's something called a Frobenioid, for example), almost everyone who has attempted to read and understand it has given up in despair. Add to that Mochizuki's odd refusal to speak to the press or to travel to discuss his work and you would think the mathematical community would have given up on the papers by now, dismissing them as unlikely to be correct. And yet, his previous work is so careful and clever that the experts aren't quite ready to give up.

A meeting at Oxford

The Clay Mathematics Institute and the Mathematical Institute at Oxford recently sponsored a meeting about Mochizuki's work. He was not in attendance, but many of the world's leading number theorists and arithmetic geometers were. The goal was not to verify the proof of the ABC conjecture, but rather to equip experts in the field with enough background and information to at least begin to read through the papers carefully. There are many summaries of the meeting online (Stanford Math Professor Brian Conrad's is particularly detailed and illuminating), and some attendees tweeted about it.

The general feeling was one of frustration, especially during the last two days when audience members repeatedly asked for illustrative examples, were promised they were coming, but then they never materialized. Mathematicians have little patience for being led down a rabbit hole, but the potential payoff in this case may persuade some to at least go in a little deeper.


It's not clear what the future holds for Mochizuki's proof. A small handful of mathematicians claim to have read, understood and verified the argument; a much larger group remains completely baffled. The December workshop reinforced the community's desperate need for a translator, someone who can explain Mochizuki's strange new universe of ideas and provide concrete examples to illustrate the concepts. Until that happens, the status of the ABC conjecture will remain unclear.

There's a general sense among nonmathematicians that the subject is either right or wrong, and the truth is easily discovered. While our discipline does insist on rigorous, logical proof of correctness, we often argue over the details. This is good for mathematics since it generally leads to better exposition and streamlined proofs.

These arguments have happened before. Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was scrutinized thoroughly, and an error was found which had to be corrected. Perelman's work on the Poincaré Conjecture was only a detailed sketch of a proof which required hard work on the part of others to be made rigorous. Mochizuki's work may eventually pass the test, but it could take many years before we get to a clean version that can be more widely understood.

Explore further: Meeting of math minds fails to clear up ABC conjecture proof

Related Stories

Meeting of math minds fails to clear up ABC conjecture proof

December 17, 2015

(Phys.org)—A group of mathematicians specializing in arithmetic geometry met for five days earlier this month in an attempt to understand a proof constructed by Shinichi Mochizuki, of Kyoto University posted online back ...

Mathematician announces that he's proved the ABC conjecture

September 12, 2012

(Phys.org)—In all of history there are very few names that stand out in the field of mathematics, at least among those not in the field: Euclid, Newton, Pythagoras, etc. This is likely due to several reasons, chief among ...

Recommended for you

Humans, not climate change, wiped out Australian megafauna

January 20, 2017

New evidence involving the ancient poop of some of the huge and astonishing creatures that once roamed Australia indicates the primary cause of their extinction around 45,000 years ago was likely a result of humans, not climate ...

Major Viking Age manor discovered at Birka, Sweden

January 19, 2017

During spring of 2016 a number of large presumed house terraces were identified by the authors at Korshamn. As a consequence high resolution geophysical surveys using ground-penetrating radar were carried out in September ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
The debased "Hitchens' Razor" asserts that any statement provided without proof or verified proof or an attempt to provide proof is automatically "logically" false. If legitimate, that would mean that those who sought for the unprovided proof to Fermat's Last Theorem were violating common sense. The same with this. The person who "proved" the conjecture even refuses to discuss or prove it, yet it is not being tossed. Kurt Godel even demonstrated that every sufficiently sophisticated logical system has statements that are true, that have no disproving situations, yet cannot be proved within the system. Yet the God haters continue to prate "Hitchens' Razor" as if it is reasonable and legitimate.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.