@highergeometer@mathstodon.xyz
Post #1684316
2026-04-22 03:50 UTC
@soaproot Hmm, the correct statement includes the definition of all 26 sporadics as well as all the infinite families, so it's not exactly geometric Langlands, but still nontrivial. A weaker version would be the definition of the cyclic, alternating, and classical groups and then the statement there are exactly 26 sporadics, without defining them. But still!
Replies (1)
-
@soaproot@sfba.social 2026-04-22 05:31
@highergeometer Yeah, all that plus definitions of group and simple and finite. So sure, not as clean that way as my other two examples. But I imagine it can be done in well less than 5,000 pages (or whatever the gen 2 proof will run to when finished).