Is this list accurate?

File: 1489051894550.jpg (38KB, 549x673px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 549x673px

no that list isn't accurate, you would never need the vast majority of what's in those books

read section 3 'Studying IUT' of https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/ibf/notesoniut.pdf

>>8780565
Good reference.
But still, what are the textbooks from the picture needed to be able to understand what is listed here:
>3.2. Entrances to IUT.
?
Say from
- Functional Analysis (Walter Rudin)
on.

>>8780683
why do you keep caring about the meme list in the picture? it was obviously made by someone who doesn't understand anything about IUT (you'll notice it has essentially 0 intersection with what is listed in the notes by someone who does understand IUT). you certainly don't need to read a book on PDEs, or an entire book on algebraic topology, or an entire book on galois theory... the telltale sign that list is a meme is that p-adic teichmuller theory is listed, which a completely separet story from IUT

just read the papers and look backwards in whatever textbook you want for the algebraic geometry/anabelian geometry/algebraic number theory that you need when you come upon gaps in your knowledge

>>8780722
>just read the papers and look backwards in whatever textbook you want
Great advice, thank you.

>>8780557
That list doesn't list anything on Elliptic Curves, Algebraic/Arithmetic Geometry, or Deformation Theory.

Yet IUTT is suppose to be an Arithmetic Deformation Theory for Elliptic Curves.

>>8780722
>an entire book on galois theory

You should really do this for any type of Arithmetic Geometry.

>>8781925
>>8781925
afaik solvability by radicals, ruler and compass constructions, and the vast majority of little polynomial tools (i.e. resolvents) usually introduced in galois theory have essentially nothing to do with most arithmetic geometry (please provide examples if i'm wrong)

>>8780557
>Dummit and Foote

FAIL.

>>8780557

>algebra israel gelfand

damn, this looks like a good book.

Anyone on /sci/ really understand what's going on in Mochimeme's work?

>>8782877
No, because everyone on here's either in highschool or an undergrad

>>8782877
No one except Mochizuki understands what's going on in Mochizuki's work.

>>8782877
>Anyone on /sci/ really understand what's going on
nope

>>8782877
this list is probably 95% of the people who are trying to understand the work as part of their day job:
http://www.uvm.edu/%7Etdupuy/participants.html

>>8781982
My nigga

I actually read it yesterday

It starts slow and you are like "wtf is this kid stuff" but it picks up pace very fast

I like the way how the problems are numbered like 1-230 and chapters like 1-50; no useless "parts" or "segments"
I also like how playful the write style is. There is literally a chapter where he tells you (shortly) about music theory, and one of the problems is "go listen to Bach and enjoy"

Good book

>>8781982
>>8783011
>when you motherfuckers got me to download a book on elementary algebra when i thought it would be abstract
thanks for wasting 120 seconds of my life