The CV was last updated this year as it contains a 2026 honor.

In 1901, Hilbert proved there is no smooth isometric immersion of the hyperbolic plane H^2 into Euclidean 3-space. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_theorem_(differential_geometry)))

John Douglas Moore, in his 1969 PhD thesis under Shoshichi Kobayashi, Some Geometric Applications of Exteriorly Orthogonal Quadratic Forms, conjectured the natural generalization: that there is no isometric immersion of H^n into E^(2n-1). He also worked toward the conjecture in his 1972 paper Isometric Immersions of Space Forms in Space Forms. (https://msp.org/pjm/1972/40-1/pjm-v40-n1-p17-s.pdf)

Recently I noticed Moore posted a preprint paper on arXiv last November, Submanifolds of Constant Negative Curvature: A Generalization of Hilbert's Theorem. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00973) It would appear he has proved his conjecture after 56 years!

He writes on his research interests page that the proof is "based on the generalized Gauss-Bonnet formula developed by Allendoerfer, Weil and Chern." (https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~moore/researchinterests.html)

I find this incredibly cool but don't have much sense for how big of a deal it is; if anyone out there does, let us know! On a personal note, as an undergrad I took ODEs and vector calc under Moore, and later did a summer research project with him on minimal surfaces. He was so warmly encouraging and a huge positive influence on my math trajectory, easily one of my favorite professors ever.

If this result holds up, it's a beautiful capstone on a long and accomplished career.

I tried making a triangle of numbers and then marked the primes. I saw that the primes in the left were more frequent than primes in the right. I can also extend it by writing some code but does it ever happen that the primes in the right exceed the primes in the left or do the primes in the left increase their gap against the primes in the right

I was thinking about my real analysis class when I took it. I think it could have been improved in many different ways. More practice problems, more explicit instruction instead of trying to have students figure it all out.

If the aim of constructing number systems is to explain the geometric line as a set of points, wouldn’t ZFC + (V=L) be a natural choice, perhaps even the best one? In this framework, analytic geometry, differential geometry and topology all work just as they normally do, without the need to grapple with metamathematical questions such as the continuum hypothesis. (Moreover, this rules out measurable cardinals, large-cardinal phenomena and similar feverish pies in the sky, but for the purposes of describing the continuum, that seems a reasonable price.)

I have always found it a little surprising that popular mathematics books rarely discuss Gödel’s set-theoretic universe, which seems to offer such an intuitive and straightforward foundation for mathematical analysis.

I've been studying Shafarevich's Basic Algebraic Geometry for some time now. He's a really famous mathematician (I first really learning about his results after hearing about his famous theorem on the inverse Galois problem), but I've been studying on my own so I could only guess how his name is pronounced, and I was wrong. Today, watching a youtube video, it became apparent to me that his name is read ShafaREVich, which the Cyrillic with accent mark (Шафаре́вич) seems to confirm.

Not really that uncommon for me -- I was pronouncing Arrhenius wrong for years after teaching myself chemistry in elementary school, and I wasn't corrected until I took AP Chem.

Also, even among mathematicians, Dirichlet seems to be particularly contentious, as I heard widely divergent pronunciations from my math professors.

Anyway, any other mathematical names that are commonly pronounced wrong? Euler's probably the most common among nontechnical people to encounter and pronounce wrong.

Chern's an interesting case, since his name is spelled in the old Gwoyu Romatyzh system, which uses letters like r to indicate Chinese tone -- modern pinyin spells in Chén, but even he himself seemed to have accepted the normal English pronunciation of his name with an r.

One of my favorite essays on mathematics is Arnold's "On teaching mathematics." In it, he describes what he views as defects of the traditional treatments of real analysis and calculus in universities; and in particular, how the emphasis on rigor removed discussions of the beautiful geometry of Riemann surfaces and how they relate to calculus. As a specific example, he describes how one can tell which integrals are easy or hard to solve by looking at the genus of the associated Riemann surface.

This week on Hidden Phenomena, you can learn what Arnold meant by this comment: what is the "genus of the Riemann surface associated to an integral," and how does it help you understand if the integral is easy or hard?

I had my first grad-level exam this week and I bombed it pretty awfully. It was a 50min exam with ~12 problems, a mixture of proofs and counterexamples. I would say I solved 2 or 3 of them and made starts on 2 or 3 more; we haven't gotten grades back yet but I'm expecting something like a 20/100. The thing that's annoying me is that none of the problems were all that hard. I can tell that I could solve them all, only it would take more like 3-4 hours instead of 50min.

Part of me wants to think that the time frame was totally unreasonable, but another part of me thinks that it was a skill issue. I'm guessing a lot of members of this sub have dealt with similar situations, so I'm wondering if there is any advice for getting quicker at answering these early-grad-level types of exam questions?

The title today is a reference to Douglas Adams' description of writing a book as "putting a hundred thousand words in a cunning order." It's technically a correct description, but it doesn't really describe how anyone actually does it in practice. Just so, while it is technically true that one builds a proof by putting many inferences in a clever order, it doesn't describe how to actually do this.

A proof, like a book, is a collection of narrative threads---understand how to build narrative, and you will start to understand how to write a proof.

Read the full post (for free) on Substack: Putting a Hundred Inferences in a Cunning Order

This recurring thread will be for discussion of AI in mathematics. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• informal announcements of AI-assisted discoveries, such as those not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, or not uploaded as a paper to arXiv;
• informal announcements of discoveries related to AI architecture (if relevant to mathematics);
• discussion of such announcements, such as proof breakdowns or other opinion pieces;
• discussion of the impact of AI in mathematics in general.

AI-assisted mathematical papers published in peer-reviewed journals or as arXiv preprints may be submitted as their own posts.

Please keep in mind rules 1 and 6 of our subreddit.

Hello! I need some problem books to accompany the book Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces by M. Di Carmo. Thank you!

Same as above

Is it elementary or notoriously massive and is there any approaches(feel free to discuss about any heavy machinery approaches too) around which you think it(the diophantine equation) can be showed to have finitely many solutions given the specific constraint?

I am looking for a text/lecture series on the theory of locales (pointless topology) . I don't want to go into much depth I just want to get a broad picture . My goal with this is to be able to understand topos theory better , as Andre Joyal in a lecture at IHES suggests that before learning topos theory it's better to have an idea of the theory of locales as there are a lot of parallels .

This recurring thread is meant for users to share cool recently discovered facts, observations, proofs or concepts which that might not warrant their own threads. Please be encouraging and share as many details as possible as we would like this to be a good place for people to learn!

This recurring thread will be for any questions or advice concerning careers and education in mathematics. Please feel free to post a comment below, and sort by new to see comments which may be unanswered.

Please consider including a brief introduction about your background and the context of your question.

Helpful subreddits include /r/GradSchool, /r/AskAcademia, /r/Jobs, and /r/CareerGuidance.

If you wish to discuss the math you've been thinking about, you should post in the most recent What Are You Working On? thread.

EDIT : Discord link attached

Holy fuck this book is hard as shit. I am a 2nd y math PhD studying this along with Hida's Geometric Modular Forms and Elliptic Curves rn. Looking for people to form a study group devoted to this. Let me know if you're interested and maybe we can form a gc/discord :)

(This book is "Arithmetic Moduli of Elliptic Curves to be clear")

Discord link : https://discord.gg/RXbRvTyR8

A brief explanation of proof assistants

I have seen Kneser's method of extending tetration to real numbers, but that doesn't seem to be right as I can't see how 2^^0.5 is not 1.55961...

As a starting point, we can see that 1+1=2 and 2x0.5=1. Also 1.4142...x1.4142...=2 and 2^0.5=1.4142. Similarly 1.55961...^1.55961...=2 and 2^^0.5 should be 1.55961...

To see integer values for all of them, the smallest number after 4 will be 256 where 256x0.5=128, 256^0.5=16 and as 4^4=256, so 256^^0.5 should be 4

We can get values at 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, ... for all numbers by this method, but there should be some way to make the curve continuous as well. Also a^^b should also satisfy a^(a^^b-1), so 2^^1.5 should be 2^1.55961 which is ≈2.9477... and 256^^1.5 should be 256^4 which is 4294967296

Is there any other way to extend tetration to real numbers

This recurring thread will be for questions that might not warrant their own thread. We would like to see more conceptual-based questions posted in this thread, rather than "what is the answer to this problem?" For example, here are some kinds of questions that we'd like to see in this thread:

• Can someone explain the concept of manifolds to me?
• What are the applications of Representation Theory?
• What's a good starter book for Numerical Analysis?
• What can I do to prepare for college/grad school/getting a job?

Including a brief description of your mathematical background and the context for your question can help others give you an appropriate answer. For example, consider which subject your question is related to, or the things you already know or have tried.

My analysis class is taught by professor X. My professor last year (professor Y) said "a letter of rec from X is very important, so go to his office hours and impress him." I have been trying to do that, I trounced the entire class on each quiz and midterm...and he still clearly doesn't even know me

I'm not really sure what I can do, I guess I just don't know how to "play the game" properly. I just want him to know my name, at the very least.

Let me preface by saying that, while I’m a mathematician, I am not a logician. I’m simply curious about the field. This post is about things that have always bugged me about undecidability.

I’ll take the Collatz conjecture (CC) as an example. Suppose the CC is undecidable in ZFC. Then, if we believe ZFC is consistent, we cannot find a counterexample. If we did, this would contradict it being undecidable. This is strange to me: we would have a statement for which we can’t show its truth while knowing we cannot find a counterexample.

Compare this with the continuum hypothesis (CH), the statement people usually refer to as example of undecidable statement. If we choose it to be true, we know there is a subset S of the real numbers which has cardinality between countable and the continuum. CH being undecidable implies that if we believe ZFC is consistent, we will not stumble into such an S by construction (say with schema specification, etc.). If we did, this would contradict ZFC. But that’s ok, because not every subset of the reals can necessarily be obtained ‘constructively’ through schema specification etc. (I am being informal here, but I believe there is a formal way to say this). So us not being able to produce a counterexample of CH does not mean that one cannot exist.

To me, this seems like a different flavour to CC. There, it seems that any counterexample would be constructive (it’s just a natural number!), and hence, if CC is undecidable, such a counterexample cannot exist.

I informally define ‘concrete’ statements are ones which are about ‘constructive’ objects. Thus any counterexample to a ‘concrete’ statement would be constructive, and hence undecidability of a ‘concrete’ statement would ‘say’ that no such counterexample exists (otherwise we would be able to construct it!).

I am left with the question: should we expect ‘concrete’ statements, such as CC, to be decidable? Maybe there is a formal answer to this question, by formalising what a ‘concrete’ statement is, and showing that such statements are decidable. Though, to me, this seems unlikely to be possible, by Gödel.
Moreover Gödel’s incompleteness theorem holds just under Peano Arithmetic, and so it seems to be saying there is a priori no difference between a statement about the natural numbers such as CC and a statement about cardinalities such as CH. But my intuition cannot help but telling me these are of different nature. Am I wrong to assume this?

A more general version of my question is, why as mathematicians do we expect the questions we are working on to be decidable? We get a sense that a proof or counterexample exists, and it seems that outside of certain ‘non-constructive’ parts of mathematics, we never run into such issues.