So what they are saying is that humans, in this case Charles Fefferman (a math prodigy, going by his history), failed to specify the problem correctly?
bmacho 11 hours ago [-]
Article says that there are 2 formulations of the NS problem and both are interesting: one is about fluid behaviour with no external forces, other is about fluid behaviour with external forces.
For a counter-example the latter is easier since you can have a tricky external forcefield.
tomjakubowski 1 hours ago [-]
I learned from this charming lo-fi video that it is actually much easier to find singularities in the Navier-Stokes equation for compressible fluids (which is out of scope for the Millenium Prize problem). The first was found in 1998 by Zhouping Xin.
The goalposts are moving so fast you can barely see them!
Next year's headline: But did Skynet kill all humans?
dgellow 1 minutes ago [-]
That has nothing with moving a goalpost, it’s about understanding the actual result and digging into the details. Obviously when you do that things become more nuanced than at first glance
ActorNightly 4 minutes ago [-]
Betteridge's law of headlines
davidguda 8 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
busssard 10 hours ago [-]
"AI solved it."
"No we almost solved it."
"No way, it was AI all alone"
"no you used our data for train..."
"Guys, Guys calm! You did not produce any useful results!"
rsfern 9 hours ago [-]
I think this is dramatized to the point it’s talking past the article, the math community isn’t really making any of these arguments from what I can tell.
The discourse is (1) models are capable of making really impressive mathematical advances, usefulness is not in dispute, (2) the frontier AI companies aren’t being super transparent about information sources so it’s hard to know exactly how to evaluate the level of capability that was demonstrated, and (3) there are lots of kinds of math that is interesting and there are open questions about how to get there.
In particular this article highlights a particular open question I’ve seen discussed on HN before, which is that the particular proof strategy of finding a counterexample might be more amenable to RL than other strategies of proof that might be needed to resolve the other branches of the Navier Stokes problem (and probably other similar areas of math)
busssard 6 hours ago [-]
yeah i agree its dramatized, but the situation was quite dramatized by the parties involved as well.
i just find it quite funny, that the perceived drama might play out like this now.
Rendered at 20:53:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
For a counter-example the latter is easier since you can have a tricky external forcefield.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wEn9B7pDV4
Next year's headline: But did Skynet kill all humans?
"No we almost solved it."
"No way, it was AI all alone"
"no you used our data for train..."
"Guys, Guys calm! You did not produce any useful results!"
The discourse is (1) models are capable of making really impressive mathematical advances, usefulness is not in dispute, (2) the frontier AI companies aren’t being super transparent about information sources so it’s hard to know exactly how to evaluate the level of capability that was demonstrated, and (3) there are lots of kinds of math that is interesting and there are open questions about how to get there.
In particular this article highlights a particular open question I’ve seen discussed on HN before, which is that the particular proof strategy of finding a counterexample might be more amenable to RL than other strategies of proof that might be needed to resolve the other branches of the Navier Stokes problem (and probably other similar areas of math)