In today's press conference, we explained our efforts over the last two years which resulted in the following conclusion: The way the argument from Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 is written in the IUT papers is unformalizable. But since Mochizuki's explanation of this point has

T twitter.com ↗

▲ 35 points • 1 comments • by ogogmad • 5w ago • HN discussion ↗

Pangram verdict · v3.3

We believe that this document is fully human-written

2 %

AI likelihood · overall

Human

100% human-written 0% AI-generated

SEGMENTS · HUMAN 1 of 1

SEGMENTS · AI 0 of 1

WORD COUNT 105

PEAK AI % 2% · §1

Analyzed

Jul 18

backend: pangram/v3.3

Segments scanned

1 windows

avg 105 words each

Distribution

100 / 0%

human / AI fraction

Verdict

Human

Pangram v3.3

Article text · 105 words · 1 segments analyzed

Human AI-generated

§1 Human · 2%

In today's press conference, we explained our efforts over the last two years which resulted in the following conclusion: The way the argument from Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 is written in the IUT papers is unformalizable. But since Mochizuki's explanation of this point has recently started evolving, we reserve final judgement at this time.

Among the key achievements LANA demonstrated at this press conference was that we provide a manageable-length analysis of the critical argument in the IUT theory for the general mathematical public, written by outsiders.

This document also includes a comparison with the 2018 Scholze-Stix report.

YouTube video: youtube.com/live/KADN5NHmI…

LANA report: github.com/katobungen/LAN…