Arithmetische geometrie

Just attended a week-long meeting at Oberwolfach on arithmetic geometry.

  • “So did you do this computation like Gauss, or did you use a computer?” – Gabber to Katz

 

  • “Let the indices work it out themselves!” – Janssen

 

  • “Shouwu, either you’re going to answer my question, or I’m going to hand you over to Ofer!” – Kisin

 

  • Katz (telling a story at the beginning of his talk): “… So anyway, after Spencer returned to Princeton, this is how he described the math department at Stanford [where he had just been a professor for a couple years]: ‘At Stanford, they’re still studying the topology of the unit disk!’ ”
    Conrad (from the audience): “Those days are over.”

 

  • “We use what I wrote.” – Janssen reassuring Gabber

 

  • “So Peter, why did you turn down the breakthrough prize? [pause] I’m only asking because I’m drunk!”

 

  • Anon.: “So Ofer, do you come here much?”
    Gabber: [looks down at table, silently moves his finger across it in stepwise motion for 30 seconds] “Seventeen times.”

 

  • Two common referees for technical papers on Shimura varieties: Frobenius and Verschiebung.

 

  • Me (after writing down the “new” definition of a diamond): “Is that OK, Peter?”
    Scholze (from the back row): “Looks good!”

 

  • Zhang: “So Mochizuki is like the Buddha.  He writes his ideas.  He is satisfied.  If you want to understand them, you visit him, you ask him questions, he gives you a little idea, you go away and study.  You have to be a monk.  Have a monk’s approach.”
    Anon.: “Unfortunately, there aren’t very many good monks.”

 

  • A “symplectic lifting whatever shit”. Apparently they’re defined in Kai-Wen Lan’s thesis?

 

  • Gabber was NOT happy when he heard about Mochizuki’s Gaussian integral analogy.

 

  • While eating the horrible bread casserole thing, which Kedlaya, Lieblich and I had mangled pretty badly while serving ourselves:
    Lieblich:”What is this supposed to BE?”
    Kedlaya: “Some kind of croque madame?”
    Nizioł: “Yes, a croque madame.  But I think you guys croqued it.”
Advertisements

Autocorrect doesn’t know math

The autocorrect feature in Gmail has the unfortunate but hilarious habit of vigorously changing standard math terms into free-associative nonsense.  Here are some highlights (and I might add to this list from time to time):

  • “Igusa varieties” -> “Iguana varieties”
  • “Zariski topology” -> “Czarist topology”
  • “Gelfand spectrum” -> “Gelatin spectrum”
  • “cokernel” -> “cockerel” (my favorite so far)

Hodge-Newton paradise

I just posted a new version of my preprint on local shtukas and Harris’s conjecture.  To be clear, the goal of this paper is to make good on the optimism I expressed in this previous post.  This project has been one of the most intense mathematical experiences of my life, and I hope to write a proper blog post about it soon.

Anyway, the paper should basically be stable at this point, with the exception that \S4.3 will probably be rewritten to some degree once Peter’s six-functors book is done.  The only real difference from the the first version is that the material around the “pointwise criterion” in \S2.2 has been streamlined and clarified a bit.  All comments, questions or corrections are very welcome!