https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11709&cpage=1
Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗
Stewards’ notes · 1
- Scholze and Stix's monodromy inconsistency arises only when IUT's distinctions between Hodge theaters are collapsed.
Without evidence. Scholze states the tracking principle and the standing challenge rather than proving that no such diagram exists; the passage is an assertion backed by the report it refers to and by his account of the Kyoto discussions. Sep 13, 2026
Examinations
None recorded.
Text
Stored, not yet divided into passages.
Mochizuki considers infinitely many distinct isomorphic copies of $\pi_1(X)$’s, but could not tell us what goes wrong if we simply identify all of them with one another, and with $\pi_1(X_0)$ for some fixed $X_0$ — there is no diagram that commutes in his situation but does not commute under this further identification. (In my manuscript with Stix, we simply went through Mochizuki’s argument with this further identification, pinpointing what goes wrong. If this further identification causes problems, just tell us which diagram it is whose commutativity is rescued by not explicitly identifying $\pi_1(X)$’s.)
Without evidence. Scholze states the tracking principle and the standing challenge rather than proving that no such diagram exists; the passage is an assertion backed by the report it refers to and by his account of the Kyoto discussions.
Lineage across 1 claim
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Published
- Not recorded
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11709&cpage=1
- Archived copy
- None found
- Stored text
- 71,223 characters, retrieved Sep 13, 2026 · not yet divided
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- Not yet checked
- Facts checked
- Not yet
History 2
- Sep 13, 2026ReadingSteward of “Scholze and Stix's monodromy inconsistency aris…” · asserts without evidence, read whole
- Sep 13, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored