Claimed proof of the ABC conjecture (Zha, 2009)
 

The following article claims to prove the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture]abc conjecture[/url]:

[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3042v1[/url]


While the proof may be in error, it is not a crank effort.
The author (Zha) has his doctorate in Arithmetic Algebraic
Geometry and Algebraic Number Theory from U. of Chicago.

I am not an expert, but the approach seems plausible.

I was not allowed to enter the URL

[url]https://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3042v1[/url]

(Submitted on 20 Jan [COLOR="Red"][B]2009[/B][/COLOR] (this version), latest version 7 Aug 2015 (v4))

This may be a silly question, but, why is this only showing up here now?

I mean, the original arXiv submission is over 10 years old, and the most recent revision there is over 3 & 1/2 years old.

Have there been recent developments?

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;513946]This may be a silly question, but, why is this only showing up here now?
[/QUOTE]
Only because of necroposting, of course.


The original R.D.S.'s post was from 2009-01-27 09:32

The newest possible proof from Shinichi Mochizuki in 2012 for which he invented [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-universal_Teichm%C3%BCller_theory"]Inter-universal Teichmüller theory[/URL].

From what I read the proof is barely understood by any other mathematicians but a few claim to have found a big hole in the proof while others claim it is good.

[QUOTE=ATH;513959]The newest possible proof from Shinichi Mochizuki in 2012 for which he invented [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-universal_Teichm%C3%BCller_theory"]Inter-universal Teichmüller theory[/URL].

From what I read the proof is barely understood by any other mathematicians but a few claim to have found a big hole in the proof while others claim it is good.[/QUOTE]

I usually see updates on what's happening with the abc conjecture on [URL="https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10560"]Peter Woit's blog[/URL]. He's done a pretty good job of keeping up with what's happening with Mochizuki's proof (and its, alleged, attendant problems).