I am having a problem which should not exist. I am reading what I believe to be an important paper by a person - let me call him/her $A$ - whom I believe to be a serious and talented mathematician. A lemma in this paper is proven by means of an argument which, if correct, is a highly elegant piece of mental acrobatics in the spirit of Grothendieck, where a complicated situation is reduced to a simple one by embedding the objects of study in much larger (but ultimately better) object. Unfortunately, the beauty of this argument is - for me - marred by a doubt about its correctness. In my eyes, the argument rests upon a confusion of two objects which are not equal and should not be, but have the same name by force of an abuse of notation going awry. A dozen of emails exchanged with $A$ did not clear up the situation, and I start feeling that this is unlikely to improve; what is likely is that after a few more mails the correspondence will degenerate into a flamewar (as any prolonged arguments with my participation seem to do, for some reasons unknown). The fact that $A$ is not a native English speaker adds to the difficulty.

At this point, I can think of several ways to proceed:

• Let go. There is a number of reasons for me not to choose this option; first of all, I really want to know whether the proof of the lemma is correct or not (even though there seems to be a different proof in literature, although not of that beauty), but this has also become, for me, a matter of idealism and an exercise in tenacity (in its cheapest manifestation - it's not like writing emails is hard work...).

• Construct a counterexample. This is complicated by the fact that I am attacking the proof, not the theorem (which seems to be correct). Yet I think I have done so, and $A$ failed to really address the counterexample. But given the frequent misunderstandings between us (not least because of the language barrier) I am not sure whether $A$ has realized that I am talking counterexamples at all - and whether there is a way to tell this without switching to what will be probably understood as an aggressive tone.

• Request $A$ to break down the argument into simple steps, eschewing abuse of notations. This means, in the particular case I am talking about, requesting $A$ to write two pages in his/her free time and respond to some irritating criticism of these pages with the prospect of seeing them destroyed by a counterexample. I am not sure this counts as courteous. Besides, the paper is about 10 years old - most authors do not even bother answering questions on their work of such age.

• Go public (by asking on MO or similarly). This is something I really want to avoid as long as there is no other way. Neither criticizing $A$ as a person/scientist, nor devaluing the paper (which consists of far more than the lemma in question...) is among my goals; besides I cannot rule out as improbable that the error is on my side (and my experience shows that even in cases when I could rule this out, it still often was on my side).

• Have a break and return to the question in a month or so. I am expecting to hear this (seems to be a popular answer to lots of questions...) yet I am not sure how this can be of any use.

These ideas are all I could come up with and none of them sounds like a good plan. What am I missing? Is my problem a common one, and if yes, does it have a time-tested solution? Can it be answered on this general scale? Is it a real problem or an artefact of my perception?

PS. This is being posted anonymously in order to preserve genericity (of the author and, more importantly, of $A$).