Wallace's demonstrated higher-math fluency — the context row under the "were IJ's math errors intentional?" question

echoes

Early text: the number-theory critique — no "Euler’s phi function (a.k.a. “totient” function)", no Vinogradov "who in 1937 revolutionized analytic number theory", the strong-vs-weak Goldbach distinction; and the aesthetic register, "the practice of higher mathematics is, in fact, an “art”" whose truths are "deductive, necessary, a priori". [mid-essay + FN-dense passages] [e-text]
IJ echo: IJ's seeded mathematical errors (the p. 259 tennis-tie probability; Pemulis's Mean Value Theorem / missing integral sign at pp. 1023–1024; the p. 1063 derivative) and the standing question of whether they are characterization, jokes, typos, or oversights. This review is the documentary basis Mike Strong names for Wallace's "clear aptitude for math" — the fact that sharpens the question, since a writer able to fault Doxiadis for omitting Vinogradov did not fumble a power-rule derivative by accident.
Weight: documentary (corroboration; intent-agnostic)