>>11538283>>The latest announcement seems unlikely to move many researchers over to Mochizuki’s camp. “I think it is safe to say that there has not been much change in the community opinion since 2018,” says Kiran Kedlaya, a number theorist at the University of California, San Diego, who was among the experts who had spent considerable effort trying to verify Mochizuki’s claimed proof.The correctness of a proof is independent of "community opinion".
>>In December 2017, Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University in New York City, wrote on his blog that the journal’s acceptance would create a situation that is “historically unparalleled in mathematics: a claim by a well-respected journal that they have vetted the proof of an extremely well-known conjecture, while most experts in the field who have looked into this have been unable to understand the proof”.This is simply incorrect as experts in the field have obviously deemed it suitable for publication, while non-experts from other fields are unable to understand the proof.
>>But one mathematician who prefers to be quoted anonymously says that editors and referees handling these papers might have been in a nearly impossible situation. “If the best mathematicians spend time trying to work out what’s going on and fail, how can one referee on his own have any chance?”I suppose one referee has a chance by working with the editorial board and multiple external experts, which is what happened.
