>>14338338>it's so advanced that mathematicians didn't get it.Mathematicians do get it though, at least Peter Scholze is the only one who took the time to get through it, and he found major flaws in one part in particular.
>https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/?psincomments#comment-4619>One small thing I would like to add is that most accounts indicate that no experts have been able to point to a place where the proof would fail. This is in fact not the case; since shortly after the papers were out I am pointing out that I am entirely unable to follow the logic after Figure 3.8 in the proof of Corollary 3.12 of Inter-universal Teichmüller theory part III: “If one interprets the above discussion in terms of the notation introduced in the statement of Corollary 3.12, one concludes [the main inequality].” Note that this proof is in fact the *only* proof in parts II and III that is longer than a few lines which essentially say “This follows from the definitions”. Those proofs, by the way, are completely sound, very little seems to happen in those two papers (to me).So essentially papers are mostly a lot of mathematical fluff followed by an unjustified proof. Corollary 3.12 has sat for years upon years, about a decade now, and an explanation still hasn't surfaced which could even hope to prove the inequality, not even from Mochizuki himself.
