|
|
|
|
|
|
by qmalzp
3272 days ago
|
|
|
If you're talking about Scholze's lectures about his cutting-edge work, there is not a chance they are accessible to undergraduates; when I attended one as a fourth-year PhD student specializing in algebraic number theory, I would say I only kind of got the gist of it. Re: your skepticism... The guy is a once-in-a-generation talent; his constructions were able to vastly simplify multiple very long, very complicated proofs that groups of the top people in this field were working on. This is in a field (algebraic number theory) which is considered one of the more saturated and technically difficult within all of mathematics (admittedly, I am likely biased on this point). That being said, all of his work so far has been in the ballpark of Langlands/p-adic/arithmetic geometry, so I would be surprised if he achieved significant results that strayed too far from this stuff. I'm not sure what you mean about Feynman; Peter's genius is not so much his ability to communicate complex ideas in a simple way, but rather he was able to come up with constructions (or if you like, abstractions) which compartmentalize the complex ideas in the right way so that they are easier to deal with. To make an analogy with computing, think of the concept of a "thread". Without the concept of a thread, you'd have to do so much manual maintenance that you could never dream of building say Google. Scholze's perfectoid spaces are analogous; their definition would have been understood by mathematicians 50 years ago, but no one really got that this was the right thing to consider. |
|
|
Feynman was known for being able to explain complex ideas (quantum, physics etc) in easier terms.
According to the article:
""Scholze is known for the clarity of his talks and papers. "I don’t really understand anything until Peter explains it to me" Weinstein said.""
"Scholze makes a point of trying to explain his ideas at a level that even beginning graduate students can follow"