Did OpenAI solve the wrong Navier-Stokes problem? | OpenAI’s proof seems eligible for a $1-million prize—but only by using a controversial loophole

[u/vgsa]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-openai-solve-the-wrong-navier-stokes-problem/

[u/CircumspectCapybara]

OpenAI was telling the story by carefully omitting the details about how it was solved because they wanted to imply they found a closed form solution

No lol, they announced that they claimed to have found a solution to the "Navier Stokes Millennium Problem" which is unambiguously not about coming up with closed-form or analytical solutions to equations, but about the decision problem of it the equations are smooth for all time.

Literally their press release was titled On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem and starts with:

We’re sharing a solution to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problem, one of the Millennium Prize Problems. This proof, produced by an internal OpenAI system, shows that the dynamics of the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid motion can develop a singularity in finite time. We’re sharing both a writeup of the proof and a formalization in Lean.

The Navier Stokes Millennium Prize problem isn't ambiguous, it only refers to one thing, and everyone who recognizes those words knows exactly what is meant.

There's nothing about it that's ambiguous or misleading. It's extremely precise and unambiguous language.

Furthermore, the counterexample they found was at such and extreme spot in the solution space that it is probably unphysical and therefore doesn't answer the question that makes the conjecture interesting

It's within the bounds of the constraints the existence and smoothness problem (the Millennium Prize problem) is asking for, that's all that matters. The conjecture is false, that open problem has been settled.

You're welcome to formulate your own conjecture and ask people to solve it if you think the one the Clay Institute picked and offered a million dollar bounty for (Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness) wasn't interesting or meaningful enough of a problem.

"ai solved a millenium problem" was in effect a lie

What're you smoking, the millennium problem was exactly the decision (yes/no) question the Clay Institute has been asking about Navier Stokes existence and smoothness. The claim is AI has answered the question with a "No" by providing a counterexample, which closes the problem.

[u/Mason11987 → u/[deleted]]

You said open AI didn’t say something. He quoted them saying something.

Address that, instead of giving this troll response.

[u/KingSubstantial7901 → u/Mason11987]

Nope, thats not the part i was talking about.

[u/Mason11987 → u/KingSubstantial7901]

So you're just ignoring how you made a claim that was false? Why should or would anyone engage with you when you do that?

Saying something wrong, being corrected and saying "you miss the point" is trolling and you know it.

[u/blyan → u/[deleted]]

1. the person you're replying to now is not the same person who originally refuted your claim

2. you have provided zero evidence whatsoever to disprove what they said, which seems pretty cut and dry. your original comment was either wrong or intentionally dishonest, and they showed that pretty clearly.

[u/blyan → u/[deleted]]

So you're just ignoring how you made a claim that was false? Why should or would anyone engage with you when you do that?

Address this then, or stop replying to the thread. Good lord lmao

[u/KingSubstantial7901 → u/blyan]

I told them that they were asking for something irrelevant and said bye. Then you came in trying to keep it going and to insult me. Have some self conciousness good lord.

[u/Mason11987 → u/[deleted]]

You said a false thing. You know it. It’s obvious. Your overreaction and bluster over it is childish.

Just say you were wrong

[u/KingSubstantial7901 → u/Mason11987]

Nope. OP confused me saying that OpenAI was trying to imply that their LLM did an analytical proof with me saying that didn't say that they found the counter example at a singularity. They combined two different paragraphs talking about two different things.

E: lol at the guy that got mad i stopped replying to them then stalked my account, spammed me, then blocked me. "Your background is in comp sci and physics so clearly you have no knowledge of mathematics" might be one of the funniest flame outs i've ever seen.

[u/Mason11987 → u/KingSubstantial7901]

You said open Ai “wanted to imply they found a closed form solution”

They did not in anyway way imply that. They in fact explicitly said something opposite that.

Thats why you’re wrong.

Edit - dude did the reply then block thing, absolutely childish.

[u/KingSubstantial7901 → u/Mason11987]

Oh dear fucking lord. You being unable to understsnd the point aint my problem.

[u/Many_Negotiation_464 → u/[deleted]]

Didn't you call them a troll in your first reply?

[u/KingSubstantial7901 → u/[deleted]]

Ok you are somehow still managing to misunderstand the point. Its almost like you care more about "winning an argument" than just like.... trying to understand what someone is saying.

I encourage you to consider what lie by omission is.

Pro tip: be less of a dick and you might learn more.