Thanks for the link. As that seems very relevant to the discussion, let me add some context: This is Mochizuki's answer to the recent criticism titled "Report

Thanks for the link. As that seems very relevant to the discussion, let me add some context: This is Mochizuki's answer to the recent criticism titled "Report On Discussions, Held During The Period March 15 – 20, 2018, Concerning Inter-Universal Teichmuller Theory (IUTC)" For TL;DR see around page 40 in that PDF: > Indeed, at numerous points in the March discussions, I was often tempted to issue a response of the following form to various assertions of SS (but typically refrained from doing so!): Yes! Yes! Of course, I completely agree that the theory that you are discussing is completely absurd and meaningless, but that theory is com- pletely different from IUTch! > Nevertheless, the March discussions were productive in the sense that they yielded a valuable first glimpse at the mathematical content of the misunderstandings that underlie criticism of IUTch (cf. the discussion of § 3). In the present report, we considered various possible causes for these misunderstandings , namely: > (PCM1) lack of sufficient time to reflect deeply on the mathematics under discussion (cf. the discussion in the final portions of § 2, § 10); > (PCM2) communication issues and related procedural irregularities (cf. (T6), (T7), (T8)); > (PCM3) a deep sense of discomfort ,or unfamiliarity ,with new ways of thinking about familiar mathematical objects (cf. the discussion of § 16; [Rpt2014], (T2); [Fsk], § 3.3). > On the other hand, the March discussions were, unfortunately, by no means sufficient to yield a complete elucidation of the logical structure of the causes underlying the misunderstandings summarized in § 17.