trailThe proof of Corollary 3.12 in Mochizuki's IUT papers contains a fundamental gap
Scholze and Stix's objection to Mochizuki's IUT proof rests on wrongly identifying objects the theory treats as distinct.
The Scholze–Stix reduction· for
Under Scholze and Stix's simplifying identifications, the argument for Corollary 3.12 yields only a trivial inequality
atomic
Taylor Dupuy argues that Scholze and Stix's simplified argument does not refute Corollary 3.12.
atomic
Independent reception· for
The mathematical community broadly does not accept Mochizuki's IUT proof of the abc conjecture.
atomic
Kirti Joshi maintains that Mochizuki's IUT papers do not establish Corollary 3.12 as written.
atomic
Formal publication· against
Mochizuki's IUT papers were peer-reviewed and published in Publications of RIMS
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
The proof of Corollary 3.12 in Mochizuki's IUT papers contains a fundamental gap
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.85Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
1depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.