I did, however, like the bit where the writer proposed that the ultimate interpreter of the supposed proof should receive credit as well as the original thinker; from the look I took at the theorem, it looks to be an arduous task (to say the least).
EDIT: I am not a maths person, and I do not keep in touch with the mathematics community except where the news is big enough to reach other fields (as this supposed proof did), so perhaps my 'nobody' is unsourced. But I believe anyone who would be 'in touch' enough to read this blog post would understand that the supposed proof is far from being accepted as a true proof.
This whole article is just kind of silly. The fact that we don't understand it is a fact about ourselves, not about Mochizuki's reasoning. The argument is meaningful and correct or it isn't, and our perceptions of it are secondary to the thing itself.
There is little to gain by lamenting the potential difficulty of verification by pointing out your interpretation of the accessibility of previous famous proof attempts.
If Mochizuki's work is correct, then in most senses, the result is proven. Whether that proof is yet accepted is another matter entirely.
