I did read the article. It wasn't clear that you were referring to that specific paragraph. > I mean, if the result of a 2008 paper is crucial, you'd think the

I did read the article. It wasn't clear that you were referring to that specific paragraph. > I mean, if the result of a 2008 paper is crucial, you'd think the guy would have just mentioned this fact. Maybe he did? Or maybe it is just not crucial.∎ The article just states "The link was immediately recognised as a crucial step in Mochizuki's grand strategy."...that is just the writer's opinion. Linking these papers to topology is trivial. The word "topological" alone occurs 111 times in the first paper. A lot of what I'm reading in this article, and others, is people complaining about not understanding something that they (probably/apparently) have not even read.