>>227

つづき

No mathematicians are known to support the superficial take of Scholze?Stix on IUT.
Their short lived study of IUT17 stands in shark contrast with the deep study of it by the other mathematicians mentioned above, who asked/made many good questions, remarks and comments.
If one does not apply appropriate efforts to study the area of a fundamentally new theory, one does not become an expert in it, whatever one’s own different area of specialisation is and achievements in it.
Of course, it is still possible to contribute useful questions, comments, remarks in relation to more conventional parts of the theory, e.g. those that came in 2012 from two analytic number theorists.
To make a mistake in one’s mathematical study is rather normal, especially when one tries to understand a complex theory going much deeper than standard research.
However, to publicly talk about faults in another theory for several years without ever having any valid evidence of the faults is irresponsible.
The failure of those two German mathematicians should not stop serious researchers to study IUT.
The failure of Mrs. Lancaster to understand the question does not in any way imply anything negative about the question.

4. Developments. Several are mentioned above.
The book by F. Kato about IUT provides more general information about various features of IUT to the wider audience.
This book was in the list of top twenty bestselling books in all subject areas on amazon.co.jp and was awarded the Yaesu prize.
There are new developments related to IUT, in different directions.
Four international workshops on anabelian geometry and IUT are organised during a special RIMS Project Research year on Expanding Horizons of Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory in 2020?2021 18, supported by the new Center for Research in Next-Generation Geometry.
(引用終り)
以上