Scientists and other Scholars who publish work considered "crank" by most peers

[barath_s]

@davidm

I read it. It’s wrong. He divides by zero on page 2.

From the article: only four mathematicians have read the entire proof. All of them worked with him in Japan.

> one must look at whole numbers in a different light—leaving addition aside and seeing the multiplication structure as something malleable and deformable. Standard multiplication would then be just one particular case of a family of structures, just as a circle is a special case of an ellipse

So division by zero isn’t proof the theory is wrong. Welcome to the club.

[davidm]

@barath_s

From the article: only four mathematicians have read the entire proof. All of them worked with him in Japan.

> one must look at whole numbers in a different light—leaving addition aside and seeing the multiplication structure as something malleable and deformable. Standard multiplication would then be just one particular case of a family of structures, just as a circle is a special case of an ellipse

So division by zero isn’t proof the theory is wrong. Welcome to the club.

You do realize that I was joking?

The problem is that he uses Ultra-Mochizuki-Division to divide by a 12 dimensional zero matrix.