Sourceunknowntext stored

Various and Sundry

Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗

Claims2

ExaminationsNone

TextStored, not divided

VersionsOne known

CopiesNone recorded

CorrectionsNot checked

Facts not yet checked

ReachNo copies recorded

StructureIn 2 claims' maps0 sources downstream across 2 claims

EvidenceNot yet read

Examinations

None recorded.

Text

Stored, not yet divided into passages.

As quoted

The LANA people have identified a precise gap in the argument (which for some reason they call a "wall" rather than a "gap"), at the point where Scholze and Stix in 2018 claimed there was a problem. [...] Since no one now has an argument (other than "it's obvious") that fixes the gap, it's clear that what PRIMS published was not a proof, but a proof with a gap, and that the refereeing process failed in this case.

The proof of Corollary 3.12 in Mochizuki's IUT papers contains a fundamental gapVerified

Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.

As quoted

Since no one now has an argument (other than "it's obvious") that fixes the gap, it's clear that what PRIMS published was not a proof, but a proof with a gap, and that the refereeing process failed in this case.

Mochizuki's inter-universal Teichmüller theory papers constitute a valid proof of the abc conjecture.Contradicteddenies

Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.

Lineage across 2 claims

Draws on · none recorded

This source

Various and Sundry

in 2 claims' maps

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=15770
Archived copy: None found
Stored text: 21,813 characters, retrieved Sep 13, 2026 · not yet divided
Versions: One known
Copies: None recorded
Corrections: Not yet checked
Facts checked: Not yet

History 1

Sep 13, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored