そのPDFは、下記 https://ivanfesenko.org/?page_id=80 News ? Ivan Fesenko ・About certain aspects of the study and dissemination of Shinichi Mochizuki’s IUT theory にしかないね 遠慮しているのかも 日付がないけど、2021/12なのでしょうね
ショルツェ氏に関する部分の対訳を作ったのでアップする（他を含む全文は5ページ（この5倍以上））
P5より （3. On negative aspects of reaction to IUT.） 3.3. One example of ‘study’ of IUT. Failing to properly study the theory, some invented their own totally incorrect versions of IUT and claimed the identity of their caricature version with IUT, without providing mathematical evidence.
In 2013?2017 not a single concrete mathematical remark indicating any essential issue in IUT was produced. However, Scholze, who does not have work in anabelian geometry and has not participated in any anabelian geometry and IUT workshops, kept talking publicly about faults in IUT since 2014 without ever providing any math evidence.16 After a lot of pressure from several mathematicians, he visited RIMS, together with Stix, in March 2018, just for several days. Instead of explaining what kind of ‘mistakes’ they see in IUT, they were kindly given introductory lectures on IUT by experts. 注）16 I wrote to him several times requesting to tell precisely what were the faults in IUT and discuss with experts. The author of IUT had invited Scholze to discuss any issues but Scholze did not follow.
The first report (not a paper with full proofs) about the meeting, shortly after the meeting and several months before the award of the Fields Medals, included a hugely incorrect version of IUT, based on a gross erroneous oversimplification of IUT. The report demonstrated various misundestandings of the theory including the difference between frobenius-like structures and etale-like structures in IUT. Its text includes no proof that the caricature version of IUT is equal to IUT. It included such very strange from the standard mathematical point of view phrases as ‘we are certain that even with all subtleties restored, the issue we are pointing out will prevail’, ‘it seems to us’. The report essentially denies the use of anabelian geometry and infinitely many theatres in IUT, since the group of automorphisms of objects is reduce to the trivial one.17 For various details see this page18 and these report and text19 of the author of IUT.
The German mathematicians intended to make their report available online, however, after reading the comprehensive report20 of the author of IUT on their report and these comments21, they changed their mind and abandoned plans to post their own report at that time. In his comprehensive report on their report the author of IUT formulated few questions to the German mathematicians which may have helped them to appreciate their mistakes.22 However, the second version of their report failed to address those questions. Moreover, it included new incorrect statements demonstrating lack of basic knowledge of more classical areas such as height theory and one of the Faltings papers.
Scholze unilaterally withdrew from any further correspondence or study of IUT. A recent short zbl review of the IUT papers by Scholze includes new mathematically incorrect statements such as statements about Hodge theatres and demonstrates sheer lack of understanding of the main concepts and structures of IUT. It is not unusual to make a mistake in one’s mathematical study, but to publicly talk about faults in another theory for several years without ever having any valid evidence is irresponsible. This examples of ‘study’ of IUT stands in shark contrast with hundreds of hours of its study by a two-digit number of other researchers.
＜追加＞ P2 1. On mathematical environment around IUT, briefly. ここに、IUTの概説があります
P3 2. The study of IUT.
One can occasionally hear a request to provide more details and explanations for the IUT papers, with an associated psychologically comfortable attitude to wait for this to happen.14 This request indicates lack of knowledge: there are already many surveys of IUT and numerous workshop talks about all of its aspects. Some people applied efforts to study IUT for some rather short period of time, without attending IUT workshops and apparently without studying anabelian geometry in depth, and stopped. This is normal. Whatever are one’s previous contributions to other areas of number theory, those do not make one an authority in anabelian geometry and IUT.
P4 Recommendations to mathematicians interested to study IUT. Pathways to study IUT are available from many sources including www-links in footnotes of this text. If you find a piece of IUT looking to you as an error and you cannot resolve it, document your evidence and contact the author or its learners to discuss. []
そうですね かなり同意だが フェセンコ先生の言い分は、>>775 "One can occasionally hear a request to provide more details and explanations for the IUT papers, with an associated psychologically comfortable attitude to wait for this to happen.14" に続く部分らしい（原文ご参照）
下記 divide the prime “2”→ n = 6 に変更して 関連するところを全部見直して、”μ6-Theory”に作り直している Cor3.12や IUTのIIIが 理解できないなら、そんなことできないでしょｗ
(参考) https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Explicit%20estimates%20in%20IUTeich.pdf [8] Explicit Estimates in Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory. PDF NEW!! (2021-12-08)
Contents 4. μ6-Theory for [IUTchI-III] 26 5. μ6-Theory for [IUTchIV] 32
P7 In §3, we establish a version of the theory of ´etale theta functions [cf. [EtTh], [IUTchII]] that functions properly at arbitrary bad places, i.e., even bad places that divide the prime “2”.
One fundamental observation - due to Porowski - that underlies the theory of the present paper is the following: n satisfies the conditions (1), (2) if and only if n = 6
Following this observation, in Definition 3.3, we introduce a new version of the notion of an “´etale theta function of standard type” [cf. [EtTh], Definition 1.9] obtained by normalizing ´etale theta functions at points arising from 6-torsion points of the given elliptic curve. In the remainder of §3, we then proceed to discuss how the adoption of such “´etale theta functions of μ6-standard type” affects the theory developed in [EtTh].
あと、適切な誘導 例えば、”アルゴリズムとして、ステートメントは長いが証明は自明という定義や命題の積み重ね”、 ”（命題の）主張を述べるためにおよそ 3 ページが費やされ, しかし, 証明がたったの 2 行で終わってしまうという, 従来の数学では比較的珍しい構成になっている” など ショルツェ氏は、下記 ”the reader will not find any proof that is longer than a few lines which is in line with the amount of mathematical content. ”と誤解しています 普通は、命題が短く、証明は長い。完全に、遠アーベルの流儀が分かってない これは、ショルツェ氏が悪いのではなく、誘導がないため不親切なのです
（>>14より、IUTに対する批判的レビュー。和訳は、google訳） https://zbmath.org/07317908 Inter-universal Teichmuller theory. I: Construction of Hodge theaters. (English) Zbl 07317908 Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 57, No. 1-2, 3-207 (2021). Reviewer: Peter Scholze (Bonn) In parts II and III, with the exception of the critical Corollary 3.12, the reader will not find any proof that is longer than a few lines; the typical proof reads 略, which is in line with the amount of mathematical content. (引用終り) 以上 []
>フェセンコ先生 https://ivanfesenko.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/rapg.pdf P3 2. The study of IUT. There are several options in relation to perception of any pioneering math work. The best is to study it yourself and base your opinion on your math knowledge of it. The next is to refrain from judgement of the theory when one does not have expertise in the relevant subject area.10 Another option is to do the same as with previous breakthroughs: believe experts in the theory. For example, most mathematicians ‘believe’ Deligne’s proof of the generalised Riemann hypothesis for varieties over finite fields without ever having checked it themselves. (引用終り)
この後者の”Another option is to do the same as with previous breakthroughs: believe experts in the theory. For example, most mathematicians ‘believe’ Deligne’s proof of the generalised Riemann hypothesis for varieties over finite fields without ever having checked it themselves.” は、結構重要と思う
ダイクストラの構造化プログラミング 「構造化プログラミング」（structured programming）の語が最初に提唱されたのは1969年にオランダのコンピュータ科学者エドガー・ダイクストラ（Edsger W. Dijkstra）が発表した論文で、本来はこちらが構造化プログラミングの定義であるとされる。
そして、フェセンコ https://ivanfesenko.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/rapg.pdf P5 Scholze unilaterally withdrew from any further correspondence or study of IUT.
まではいい
けど 次の A recent short zbl review of the IUT papers by Scholze includes new mathematically incorrect statements such as statements about Hodge theatres and demonstrates sheer lack of understanding of the main concepts and structures of IUT. It is not unusual to make a mistake in one’s mathematical study, but to publicly talk about faults in another theory for several years without ever having any valid evidence is irresponsible. は、フェセンコ氏の通りと思います
”but to publicly talk about faults in another theory for several years without ever having any valid evidence is irresponsible. ” です
＞The German mathematicians intended to make their report available online, however, after reading the comprehensive report20 of the author of IUT on their report and these comments21, they changed their mind and abandoned plans to post their own report at that time. In his comprehensive report on their report the author of IUT formulated few questions to the German mathematicians which may have helped them to appreciate their mistakes.22 However, the second version of their report failed to address those questions. ＞Moreover, it included new incorrect statements demonstrating lack of basic knowledge of more classical areas such as height theory and one of the Faltings papers.
・2018年3月、数理研で行なわれたIUTeichに関する議論を纏めた報告書 （および関連文書） https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/IUTch-discussions-2018-03.html [SS2018-05] May 2018 Report by the other participants in the March 2018 discussions https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/protectedpdf-2018-05/SS2018-05.pdf
[Cmt2018-05] Comments on [SS2018-05] by Shinichi Mochizuki https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Cmt2018-05.pdf
[SS2018-08] August 2018 Report by the other participants in the March 2018 discussions 略
[Cmt2018-08] Comments on [SS2018-08] by Shinichi Mochizuki 略
