>In May 2018, Scholze and Stix wrote a 10-page report, updated in September 2018, detailing the (previously identified) gap in Corollary 3.12 in the proof, describing it as "so severe that in [their] opinion small modifications will not rescue the proof strategy", and that Mochizuki's preprint cannot claim a proof of abc.[11] They make a number of simplifications of IUTT, some drastic and not all of which Mochizuki considers valid, and insist on the distinction he does not make between 'abstract and concrete "pilot objects"'.vs
>In July and October 2018, Mochizuki wrote 8- and 5-page reactions to the May and September versions of the Scholze and Jakob Stix report, maintaining that the gap is the result of their simplifications, and that there is no gap in his theory.Mochizuki used fucking weird concepts and languages, defying all norms in mathematics as far as I can tell. It's either like he cannot formulate his thought process into normal mathematical language, or he's trying to deliberately confuse readers.
I'll go with this Anon
>>11265828 
