## 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.”

## 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)

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!