>Be Shinichi Mochizuki
>Post 500 pages of terse and hard to comprehend mathematics
>Claim to have solved notorious problems like ABC conjecture and Szpiro conjecture
>Refuse to elaborate
>Call those that disagree brainlets

Is he based or has he lost it completely?

>>16699151 (OP)
Borcherds addressed this on his channel. This is completely normal in the field. What’s not normal is that half the people in the know who read it said it was valid, while the other half said the proof had irreparable faults.

>>16699188
>half the people in the know who read it said it was valid
Half? Are you a mochizuki shill? That fraction sounds way too high

>>16699209
Half means something like 6 people, anon.

>>16699151 (OP)
qrd on his proof and which part jews think is flawed?

>>16699760
Mochizuki's proof of the abc conjecture:

Theorem: I’m right and you’re wrong.
Proof:
>6000 pages of buzzwords

Corollary: kys fucktard
Proof:
Exercise

>>16699228
And all those 6 people are his Japanesee students

>>16699760
It just makes an unsupported leap at one point.

>>16699188
If Borcherds said that then he doesnt fully understand the situation. Mochizuki's work is absolutely not in standard math terminology.

The proof is such that without the added autist language only 6-7 people on the planet could understand it in its entirety, but since everything's hidden behind hodge theatres and other shit only he cares about he made the proof inaccessible to those 6 other people. Not because those 6 couldn't understand it if they tried, but because it's not worth it to learn a bunch of new definitions for a proof that might or might not be correct. Scholze went through it and found a gap that in his opinion renders the proof unsalvageable, and that's good enough for everyone involved.

>>16699760
Mochizuki is half jew

>>16699839
add it to his wiki page

>>16699837
>dude Scholze lmao
>dude you can’t make new definitions that can assist with your proof
Appeal to authority + aversion to creativity = midwit.

I haven't been to /sci/ in 8 years and you're still discussing IUT.

>>16699969
>still discussing IUT
Discussion will cease when a mathematician autistic enough reads the whole thing and gives us a definitive answer.

>>16699969
There's no real discussion on IUT online. Basically nobody has the necessary background in Anabelian Geometry which in itself is a stupidly difficult field (both in terms of content and actually finding material on it). It's all just shitposting

>>16699837
The language isn't necessarily that obscurantist when you consider that Mochizuki is working with these disgusting high-level objects like poly-morphisms. He essentially has an intuition for this high-level stuff and the text doesn't cleanly derive and construct things but more or less expects you to have that too and hand-waves many arguments. The disagreement Scholze-Stix have basically comes down to such handwaving.

>>16700117
Other mathematicians are not obliged to translate your hand-waving. Though that doesn't mean they wont ever, but it has to be worth it. For instance the proof of the Poincare conjecture contained quite a bit of hand-waving, but people still read it because Perelman had gotten further along in the problem in the first few pages than Hamilton had in 20+ years of working on it. There is no such reason for anybody to give Mochizuki such leniency, since he even said himself there are no intermediate results which can be obtained from the proof. Besides, when Scholze and Stix pointed out the gap instead of trying to fix it or clarify the arguments further, he just wrote a bunch of pages about how they're wrong while refusing to clarify. That is not the behavior of someone genuinely willing to communicate their ideas or accept criticism.

>The language isn't necessarily that obscurantist when you consider that Mochizuki is working with these disgusting high-level objects like poly-morphisms.
Yes it is when you consider he essentially re defined a bunch of pre existing mathematics. You don't do that. A big thing is that Mochizuki was hiding all the problems with his proof behind new definitions.
>https://zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:1465.14002
>Thus, when the author later chooses an infinite collection of such Hodge theaters, he might as well choose an infinite collection of elliptic curves isomorphic to E.

If you can't make yourself understood, then the brainlet is you.