Talk:Peter Scholze

Thanks
Thanks to Mifter for the protection level, but...

The "Fields Medal (2018)" is still in the infobox. This is the medal that will be awarded in August, and of course we don't know for sure this man will be awarded it yet. I therefore say this should be removed and kept out until the date: 1 August 2018, 12:30 pm BST. At which point the medal will be awarded and it can be added to the article of whoever won it.

Google "When is the 2018 fields medal awarded?" or read this nature article where it says the award will happen "in August at the 2018 International Congress of Mathematicians in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil." Note the ICM will be between 1-9 August 2018.

86.185.214.139 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Purely local aspects
The article says that "Scholze's work has concentrated on purely local aspects of arithmetic geometry". That may be true for his earliest work, but it's not true anymore. His paper "On torsion in the cohomology of locally symmetric varieties" is about number fields, i.e. global number theory. --Letkhfan (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

False claim about condensed mathematics
"Scholze and Dustin Clausen proposed a program for condensed mathematics—a project to unify various mathematical subfields, including topology, geometry, functional analysis and number theory." The claim that its purpose is to unify these fields is false. For now, I am replacing it with "Scholze and Dustin Clausen proposed a program for condensed mathematics."

This how Scholze himself described it: "Condensed mathematics claims that topological spaces are the wrong definition, and that one should replace them with the slightly different notion of condensed sets." Source: https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2020/12/05/liquid-tensor-experiment/

73.84.185.202 (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Scholze made an interesting remark here:
 * https://differentialgeometri.wordpress.com/2020/12/12/algebraic-geometry-and-its-plot-to-take-over-the-analytic-world/
 * "As I hope was clear from the phrasing, the opening paragraphs from my
 * course were not at all serious (I mean, Mumford was joking, so was I). I
 * have no ambitions to overtake analysis, I just want to be able to talk
 * about those parts of analysis that I care most about in a way that
 * combines seamlessly with how arguments work in arithmetic/algebraic
 * geometry. The hope that this could be done resulted from having had to
 * do quite a bit of p-adic analysis, and this never felt much like
 * analysis to me.
 * So yes, I just hope that it may be a helpful alternative language for
 * some analytic questions close to algebraic geometry." Ndcroos (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)