Well, in science there’s a simple rule: your substantiate your claims.

A plausibility argument like Tao’s one is simply not an argument.

To show that Mochizuchi is wrong you need to point out which equation of his work is wrong, which by the way is Peter Scholze’s plan.

Tao by his own admission does not have the background to evaluate Mochizuchi’s theory and still gives this worthless plausibility argument, appealing to his knowledge of other unrelated proofs. I’m astonished.