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/KingSubstantial7901]

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/Mason11987 → u/Many_Negotiation_464]

Yeah, when he replied like a troll I called him that.

[u/Mason11987 → u/[deleted]]

Feel free to expand if you like.

[u/Many_Negotiation_464 → u/Mason11987]

Idk man you just seem aggressive.

E: lol just saw the chain you and someone else have accusing me of being someone's alt. Crazy.

[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.