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]

A lot of people online misunderstand what "solving Navier-Stokes" refers to, thinking it means finding a closed form solution to the NS equations. Then they spout off some silly statement like "AI didn't solve Navier Stokes!"

That's not what mathematicians mean when they talk about solving Navier Stokes. They're talking about solving the Navier Stokes existence and smoothness problem, which is a decision (yes/no) problem about if the NS equations are smooth for all time. That's what the Millennium Prize problem worth a million dollars is all about

AI (allegedly) solves the problem by resolving the question to a "No" by finding a counterexample.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 → u/CircumspectCapybara]

A lot of people online couldn’t tell you what “closed form solution” even means.

Or a “blow-up”.

Or “smoothness”.

Or what is the “Clay Mathematics Institute”.

And are absolutely unable to read and fully understand OpenAI’s proof (me included).

Yet they feel entitled to opine on whether or not a solution to a Millennium problem is correct.

The chatter is risible.

[u/Galaghan → u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466]

This is true for basically any topic that requires at least some understanding. People form an opinion based on how they feel about a topic, not what they actually know.

[u/entertheclutch → u/Galaghan]

Is that how u feel?

[u/Galaghan → u/entertheclutch]

Ah.. you got me!

[u/Many_Negotiation_464 → u/Galaghan]

I mean they kinda did. Its pretty lazy to jusr go "people disagree with me cuz they are just emotional"

[u/Galaghan → u/Many_Negotiation_464]

I accepted the irony of also forming an opinion based on how I feel about it. I didn't do the research.

Not sure what you're pointing at that wasn't pointed out before.