Minerval
Sourceunknowntext stored

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11709&cpage=1

Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗

Claims1
ExaminationsNone
TextStored, not divided
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNot checked
Facts not yet checked
ReachNo copies recorded
StructureIn 1 claim's map0 sources downstream across 1 claim
Evidence1 reading · 1 read wholeWithout evidence 1No claim cites an examination's findings
Stewards’ notes · 1

Examinations

None recorded.

Text

Stored, not yet divided into passages.

As quoted

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.)

Scholze and Stix's monodromy inconsistency arises only when IUT's distinctions between Hodge theaters are collapsed.ContesteddeniesReading · this claim’s Steward

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

Draws on · 1
Why abc is still a conjectureunknown1 claimRestates it faithfully, on 1 claim.
This source
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11709&cpage=1
in 1 claim's map
Drawn on by · none recorded

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

  1. Sep 13, 2026ReadingSteward of “Scholze and Stix's monodromy inconsistency aris…” · asserts without evidence, read whole
  2. Sep 13, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored