The comment from "PS" and the reply from "BCnrd" on this blog post https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved

The comment from "PS" and the reply from "BCnrd" on this blog post https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/#comment-638 https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-con... (which was linked elsewhere in this comment section) claim, more or less, that there are 49 lemmas which are presented in sufficient detail to be computer-checkable, and one lemma which is not presented in enough detail for either computers or (most) humans to check, but is stated to follow straightforwardly if you understand the overall argument made by the other 49 lemmas. There are a couple of people besides Mochizuki who say "Yes, it does follow immediately, it's pretty clear," and they haven't been able to communicate why it's pretty clear to anyone else. That was in 2017: in 2018, Peter Scholze and Jakob Stix spent a week with Mochizuki trying to understand the proof and published their claim that the proof is flawed, which focuses on that very same unclear portion. In their understanding, that portion of the proof claims something much weaker and uninteresting, and they haven't been convinced of the intended claim. http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/SS2018-08.pdf http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/SS2018-08.pdf