4 ms·
> At this point there is a major and clearly stated objection to the proof out in public to which no reasonable refutation has been offered. The problem is: Sc
by wolfgke 7y ago
> At this point there is a major and clearly stated objection to the proof out in public to which no reasonable refutation has been offered.
The problem is: Scholze and Stix formulated their objections to a "simplified" version of IUTT (i.e. they did quite some identifications). Their claim is that these simplifcations do not matter for whether IUTT holds or not, but Mochizuki claims that the details that Scholze and Stix "wiped away" do matter. No side could convince the other side of their position.
If you want to dive into the gory details:
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/SS2018-08.pdf http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/SS2018-08.pdf (Scholze & Stix)
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Rpt2018.pdf http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Rpt2018.pdf (Mochizuki)
If you love flamewars, read: Ivan Fesenko: Remarks on Aspects of Modern Pioneering Mathematical Resarch; https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/plp/pmzibf/rapm.pdf https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/plp/pmzibf/rapm.pdf
- zamalek 7y agoHe didn't give his two biggest critics the time of day. You can't fault them for sticking to their conclusion, the authority to the contrary is completely uninterested in defending their position. We'll probably never know if he actually solved it. Few have the knowledge, fewer had the patience and nobody has had rebuttal. Scholze and Stix conclusions hold exactly as much weight as Mochizuki's. They are unwilling to change their mind and recant, just as much as Mochizuki is. This whole fiasco reflects very poorly on the mathematical community in general.
- wolfgke 7y agoUpdate: Here is Mochizuki's website that contains links to many more details of the discussion: http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/IUTch-discussions-2018-03.html http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/IUTch-discussions-...