1年半ほど前ABC予想に関するピーター・ショルツの見解を紹介したことがあったが、そこでリンクしたPeter Woitのブログで今回の「証明」を機に改めてABC予想に関するエントリが立ち、そちらのコメント欄にショルツが降臨している(H/T math_jinさんツイート)。以下はそのコメントの冒頭部と最終部の引用。

I have been weighing back and forth commenting again on this matter. However, the news in that last comment by David J. Littleboy convinced me that it might be good, even if futile, to say something again.
I may have not expressed this clearly enough in my manuscript with Stix, but there is just no way that anything like what Mochizuki does can work. (I would not make this claim as strong as I am making it if I had not discussed this for with Mochizuki in Kyoto for a whole week; the following point is extremely basic, and Mochizuki could not convince me that one dot of it is misguided, during that whole week.) It strikes deep into my heart to think that in the name of pure mathematics, an institute could be founded for research on such questions, and I sincerely hope that this will not come back to haunt pure mathematics.
I’m really frustrated with the current situation. What EricB reports from the Asahi Shinbun also sounds deeply troubling, effectively arguing along national lines; again, this strikes deep into my heart. I’m really quite surprised by the strong backing that Mochizuki gets from the many eminent people (who I highly respect) at RIMS.
If I can in any way help to mitigate the situation, I’d be most happy to.
この件に再びコメントするかに関しとつおいつしていたが、David J. Littleboyの直近のコメント中の報道*1により、もう一度何か言うことが、たとえ無益にせよ、良いことであろうと確信した。


舌鋒鋭いという点ではブログ主のPeter Woitも負けておらず、望月論文の掲載を決めたPRIMS(RIMS(京都大数理解析研究所)編集、欧州数学会発行)をコメント欄で以下のように腐している。

  • 4/4付けコメント(「望月論文を掲載しない理由はなく、掲載したうえで問題を論じれば良いのではないか」と述べたコメントへの応答)

The latest version of Mochizuki’s papers have always been available online, and anyone who wants to work on this has all they need. The only difference with having a published version is that the journal’s editors have put their own reputation and that of their journal behind the claim that the arguments in the papers have been checked and are valid and complete. Given that the consensus of experts is still that this is a flawed proof, I don’t see what the PRIMS editors are accomplishing here other than putting a torch to their journal’s reputation.

  • 4/6付けコメント(「RIMSは自分のところの研究者の論文を国際的な雑誌よりも緩い査読の基準で載せる権利を道徳的に有しているのではないか」という主旨のコメントへの応答)

Different math journals do have different standards, and may have a mission of publishing their own researcher’s work. But “lower standards” means willingness to publish correct but not very interesting work, or maybe even correct but not very well written papers, not publishing incorrect papers.