>>11529699>Not relevant to the mathematical substance.Fesenko cannot be said to be a credible expert if even members of the Kyoto circle think he's not. So either he's not an authority, or Yamashita's not an authority, which is it? Either way your circle of "experts" got one smaller, if Fesenko is legit, then Mochizuki was unable to explain his "proof" to his closest colleagues and supporters, if Fesenko is a pretender, then it has no support outside of Kyoto and Mochi's immediate circle of influence. Either way it's not a good look.
>Not an area expertBut he absolutely has more contact with them than you do, and he's saying that they disagree with you.
>and the article you linked even has a quote from him saying no one can point to an error.Until Scholze and Stix did, which has brought everything into clear focus.
>This was prior to Mochizuki's counter-points.I can absolutely guarantee you that almost NOBODY in mathematics takes them seriously.
What're your credentials btw? Can you claim to be an expert? Where did you do your undergrad and postgrad?
