trailMochizuki's rebuttals to Scholze and Stix have not persuaded arithmetic geometers outside his circle.
The distinctions IUT draws between isomorphic copies of objects carry essential mathematical content.
Scholze and Stix's objection to Mochizuki's IUT proof rests on wrongly identifying objects the theory treats as distinct.
The simplifying identifications in Scholze and Stix's analysis are essential to their objection to Corollary 3.12.
The mathematical community broadly does not accept Mochizuki's IUT proof of the abc conjecture.
Scholze and Stix's 2018 report concluded that Mochizuki's IUT proof of the abc conjecture contains a serious, unfixable gap.
Scholze's zbMATH review of the published IUT papers maintains that the proof of Corollary 3.12 is incomplete.
Public endorsements of Mochizuki's IUT proof come almost entirely from his RIMS colleagues and longstanding advocates.
The argument from Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 as written in the IUT papers cannot be formalized in a proof assistant.
+3
Kirti Joshi maintains that Mochizuki's IUT papers do not establish Corollary 3.12 as written.
atomic
Taylor Dupuy argues that Scholze and Stix's simplified argument does not refute Corollary 3.12.
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Mochizuki's rebuttals to Scholze and Stix have not persuaded arithmetic geometers outside his circle.
✓VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →credence 0.95Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
3depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.