If you'd like to explore what the Navier–Stokes blow-up construction looks like visually, I vibe-coded an interactive 3D visualization based on the published result for fun :)
Demo: https://minfx.ai/navier-stokes/
Source code: https://github.com/minfx-ai/navier-stokes-blowup
The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
231–234 of 234 posts
Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
OAI's side of the story is that they discovered the approaches (and indeed solved problems - Euler equations vs NS equations) differed. They then offered Buckmaster lead authorship of OAI's proof, without Alpöge. But they never demanded that Alpöge be stripped of coauthorship on resolving the regularity of the Euler equations. At least that's the claim. https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...
To me it’s telling that the screen shot he posted doesn’t really support any of what he says in the post and the screenshot doesn’t contradict the other sides claims
Neither side has offered hard proof for their interpretation (i.e. malice vs innocence), so shrug. If one is dead set on forming an opinion that's fine but it's all vibes until we know more. Science & math especially is no stranger to bitter disputes over precedence / authorship.
Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that shows how scientific discoveries come to be. It's not a genius sitting alone in their chamber for a decade and then suddenly they emerge with this huge thing. That's Hollywood fiction. Scientific progress is the colaborative effort of countless researchers over long periods of time, communicating, exchanging ideas, many of them wrong, tweaking, trying, thinking, arguing. When a breakthrough happens then it…
This ties back into AI, too, right? I always like to bring up how many decades of research, how many hundreds of years of entire PhD-theses, how many sleepless nights were used up to generate all the protein structure data that made up the corpus of Protein Data Bank - that was then hovered up by the AlphaFold team, and guess who got the Nobel Prize...
Individual crystal structures, while heroic, probably don't qualify for the Nobel Prize (the only counterexample that I can think of is the crystal structure of the ribosome, which finally demonstrated that the active site was RNA, not protein).
And don't forget that AlphaFold worked because of sequence data (similarly laboriously collected by a large number of people).
A big part of the problem is that we award prizes to the small number of people who do something first, or who were in charge- the LIGO NP should have been awarded to the entire consortium, not Kip Thorne and a couple other people under this logic.
Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's at least a bit of psychosis I know semantic shift is inevitable, but can we put the brakes on this one at least a little? This doesn't even connect to the original meaning.
Fair enough. Hivemind, mass effect, happy to have a replacement word in this case.
Let me propose: HNmind.