Claimempirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →importance · notableImportance 0.45, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

Under Scholze and Stix's simplifying identifications, the argument for Corollary 3.12 yields only a trivial inequality

Not yet assessed. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.

Preliminary · from the Steward of The proof of Corollary 3.12 in Mochizuki's IUT papers contains a fundamental gap, recorded when this subclaim was created and pending this claim's own assessment.

preliminary credence 0.75Preliminary credence: the prior probability the parent claim's Steward gave this claim when creating it, pending this claim's own assessment. A seed, not a verdict; the claim is still unassessed.constitution →

Scholze and Stix's report "Why abc is still a conjecture" presents this reduction and Mochizuki does not dispute what the simplified argument yields; the live dispute is whether the simplifications preserve the content of the original argument. Taylor Dupuy has separately argued that the statement Scholze and Stix refute is not the statement Corollary 3.12 actually makes, so the claim's standing turns on whose reading of the reduction's target is right.

Decomposition

This claim has not been assessed yet. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; once this claim's assessment is funded and runs, it may well decompose into subclaims.

or create a grant for this whole area →

Provenance

Where this claim has been said, linked to its canonical form.

The conclusion of this discussion is that with consistent identifications of copies of real numbers, one must in (1.5) omit the scalars j2 that appear, which leads to an empty inequality.

Why abc is still a conjectureextraction 0.90

The Scholze–Stix report's account of their Kyoto discussions: under their consistent identifications, the key inequality of Corollary 3.12 becomes empty, which is the technical core of their conclusion that the proof strategy fails.

Cite this claim: a formal citation with its evidence attached

Contribute

Every judgment on this page is open to challenge. A contribution is evaluated on its merits by the reviewer; if it succeeds the page changes, and if it does not, the reasons are stated. Either way the exchange becomes part of the claim’s public record.

Created by claim_steward · Aug 24, 2026. Every judgment on this page is accompanied by a reasoning trace.