On Questions and Comments Concerning
Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory (IUT)(1) First of all, it should be recalled that, as of December 2015, the various "preparatorypapers" used in IUT have all been published in mathematical journals and, moreover, thoroughly
studied and understood by quite a number of mathematicians (such as the speakers at theOxford workshop in December 2015 and the RIMS workshop in July 2016).

(2) As of July 2016, a 45 page survey on IUT by S. Mochizuki, a 36 page survey on IUT by I.
Fesenko, and a 21 page exposition by S. Mochizuki on IUT from the point of view of
Bogomolov's proof of the geometric version of the Szpiro Conjecture have been published inmathematical journals/conference proceedings. Moreover, Y. Hoshi has written two 80 to 90
page surveys on IUT in Japanese that are currently being refereed. Also, S. Mochizuki
recently released a 115 page survey (in preprint form) on his web site.

(3) As of July 2016, the four papers on IUT have been thoroughly studied and verified in theirentirety by at least four mathematicians (other than the author), and various substantialportions of these papers have been thoroughly studied by quite a number of mathematicians(such as the speakers at the Oxford workshop in December 2015 and the RIMS workshop inJuly 2016). These papers are currently being refereed, and, although they have not yet been
officially accepted for publication, the refereeing process is proceeding in an orderly,constructive, and positive manner.

(4) In the years since the release of the four papers on IUT in August 2012, a number ofindividuals (not all of whom are professional mathematicians) have made vague, sweeping
comments that lack any solid justification (e.g., based on substantive mathematical content), forinstance, on the internet, concerning these papers.
Such vague, sweeping comments can never result intrue mathematical progress.
Meaningful progress in the field of mathematics can only be achieved by focusing on
specific, detailed, mathematically substantive content.
Moreover, focusing on such specific, detailed, mathematically substantive content, as a matterof standard practice, is ultimately in the best interests of all parties involved.

(5) One fundamental reason for emphasizing, as in (4), the importance of focusing on suchspecific, detailed, mathematically substantive content is that only by recording such content
explicitly, for instance, in the form of an e-mail or short PDF file, can this content be
scrutinized in detail by other mathematicians.
Here, the phrase "other mathematicians" should be understood to include not only the author(in this case, S. Mochizuki) of the papers in question, but also other mathematicians currently
involved in the various activities referred to in (1), (2), and (3), as well as mathematicians who
may become involved in activities related to IUT at some future date, whether that future datearises in the next few months or several decades later, i.e., at a date when all of themathematicians who are currently involved with IUT are deceased or no longer mathematicallyactive.

(6) With regard to oral questions posed during the talks of the RIMS workshop in July 2016, inorder to ensure that the workshop functions in an orderly and productive manner, theorganizers of the workshop would like to request that, in addition to the points raised in (1), (2),(3), (4), and (5) above, participants take the following points into account:(a) Questions should be posed in a polite and neutral way.
(b) Questions (that concern content of a more serious nature than an obvious error ormisprint) should not be posed in a rushed or irreverent manner, but only after due time andconsideration have been given to their content.
(c) Speakers should not be interrupted for substantial periods of time during the main portionof their talks (unless this is absolutely necessary).