Over the last several years my work has focused primarily on the Langlands Program a web of very influential conjectures linking number theory, algebraic geometry and the theory of automorphic forms. I am trying to develop arithmetic techniques that will, I hope, help to resolve some of the fundamental questions in this field. I am delighted to be appointed a Royal Society Research Professor in their anniversary year and I look forward to the opportunities this will give me to further my research.

### About

### Not Even Wrong: The Book

### Categories

- Book Reviews (79)
- BRST (12)
- Experimental HEP News (148)
- Fake Physics (3)
- Langlands (25)
- Multiverse Mania (137)
- Not Even Wrong: The Book (27)
- Obituaries (18)
- Quantum Mechanics (11)
- Quantum Theory: The Book (3)
- Strings 2XXX (16)
- This Week's Hype (93)
- Uncategorized (1,151)

### Recent Comments

- 50 Years of Electroweak Unification 10

Peter Woit, Ilyas, David Derbes, Peter Woit, Frog Leg, physicsphile [...] - The Big Bang Theory and the Death of SUSY 34

Mark Roulo, Curious Wavefunction, Peter Woit, John, Anon, Peter Woit [...] - Various Topics in Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 17

Dave Miller, feynman fan, Peter Woit, Low Math, Meekly Interacting, feynman fan, Peter Woit [...] - 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics 52

aaaaaaaaa, Kyle MacDonald, Peter Woit, Kyle MacDonald, Yatima, Paul [...] - Vladimir Voevodsky 1966-2017 5

Nick, kris, Anonymous, Peter Woit, David Roberts

- 50 Years of Electroweak Unification 10
### Archives

### Links

### Mathematics Weblogs

- Alex Youcis
- Alexandre Borovik
- Cathy O'Neil
- Daniel Litt
- Danny Calegari
- David Hansen
- David Mumford
- Emmanuel Kowalski
- Harald Helfgott
- Jesse Johnson
- Johan deJong
- Lieven Le Bruyn
- Mathematics Without Apologies
- Michael Hutchings
- Motivic Stuff
- Noncommutative Geometry
- Pieter Belmans
- Qiaochu Yuan
- Quomodocumque
- Rigorous Trivialities
- Secret Blogging Seminar
- Terence Tao
- The n-Category Cafe
- Timothy Gowers

### Physics Weblogs

- Alexey Petrov
- AMVA4NewPhysics
- Andrew Jaffe
- Angry Physicist
- Capitalist Imperialist Pig
- Chad Orzel
- Charles Day
- Clifford Johnson
- Cormac O’Raifeartaigh
- Doug Natelson
- EPMG Blog
- Georg von Hippel
- Gordon Watts
- Jackson Clarke
- Jacques Distler
- Jennifer Ouellette
- Jim Baggott
- John Horgan
- Kyle Cranmer
- Lubos Motl
- Makoto Sakurai
- Matt Strassler
- Matthew Buckley
- Michael Schmitt
- Norbert Bodendorfer
- Peter Orland
- Physics World
- Resonaances
- Robert Helling
- Ross McKenzie
- Sabine Hossenfelder
- Scott Aaronson
- Sesh Nadathur
- Shaun Hotchkiss
- Shores of the Dirac Sea
- Stacy McGaugh
- Steve Hsu
- Tommaso Dorigo

### Twitter

### Meta

I see that slides can be downloaded for 3 out of the 18 talks given at the Group Representations conference you attended at Yale.

http://www.liegroups.org/zuckerman/slides.html

In particular Garrett Lisi’s talk is one of those for which the slides are available.

Unfortunately I couldn’t be there for my advisor’s conference. Unemployment is a harsh and forbidding landscape.

J.A. I’ve read your blog and some of the comments re the current math job market. Sounds very tough–as if they are almost forcing pure math PhD’s to go back for applied courses of some type. Sad you were unable to attend your advisor’s 60th-birthday conference. Hope things improve soon.

I am going to order that Perelman book right away!

The anniversary of the Riemannian hypothesis should be celebrated with a lecture by Allain Connes in Göttingen, but it semms neither Connes nor Göttingen is involved in this? Too bad.

Just re-read Riemanns original paper (in Edwards, “H. M. Riemann’s Zeta Function”). As you all probably know already, what is called “Riemannian hypothesis” is only a remark in the paper, which is about the “number of primes less than a given magnitude”. At the end of the paper Riemann compares his formula with the known number of primes smaller than 3 million! referencing the work of Gauss and Goldschmidt. Wow, they computed all primes lower than 3 million without a computer! (And he mentions that he himself tried to prove his hypothesis: “One would of course like to have a rigorous proof of this, but I have put aside the search for such a proof after some fleeting vain attemps, because it is not necessary for the immediate objective of my investigation”. What would he have said if someone had told him that this would become one of the most popular open problems of the 21st century?).