From what I understand (not exactly my area) Perelman&#x27;s proof was quite intelligible. Yes there were lots of details to fill in, but for the expert it was clear how this should be done. Perelman&#x27;s proof also had a long background (it implemented ideas outlined by Hamilton earlier) so for experts it made a lot of sense. I don&#x27;t think there is a lot of similarity between the two situations.<p>Research is a social activity. Being a successful researcher means being social. What social means depends on the norms of the relevant field. Yes, we should reflect on those norms and allow innovators to push boundaries but for the science to evolve it has to take everyone with it.<p>Mochizuki and those around him have a responsibility only if they want take part in the mathematical community - which I think and hope they do.<p>I am taking the word of experts in the area of arithmetic geometry who say there isn&#x27;t being enough done to communicate his ideas. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong (really it isn&#x27;t about this - it is about whether his new ideas have merit - the proof of the abc conjecture would be strong evidence for this) I think the current situation speaks for itself.<p>Edit: Also, you are entirely correct, we are humans, we should be social in every regard!