After Perelman&#x27;s proof, there have been some &quot;filling in of details&quot;. [1] Would you say that Perelman&#x27;s proof is comparable, and that he could also have been more pedagogical? Do you see any parallel at all?<p>It sounds to me as if you are implying, that it is Mochizuki&#x27;s responsebility to be pedagogical. If being pedagogical is good (because it is more social?), how is mathematics different from any other discipline? Surely one ought to be social in every regard.<p>If the proof turn out to be correct, would you still say Mochizuki communicated it wrong?<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Grigori_Perelman#Verification" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Grigori_Perelman#Verification</a>