Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Navier-Stokes Announcement

claymath.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 288 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#11

Post by auggierose »

Legend2440 wrote: post #7

Their rules PDF says they won't accept any solution until at least two years after publication in a qualifying outlet. This allows time for the mathematical community to review and accept new results. As the OpenAI proof hasn't been officially published yet, the clock hasn't started ticking.

The Lean proof is published, you can download it. The clock definitely is ticking.

Edit: Oh, didn't see the "qualifying outlet" condition. But Poincare was ever just put on arXiv, so arXiv must count as well.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#13

Post by ngruhn »

tristanj wrote: post #8

It's worth mentioning that OpenAI will not be eligible for the Millennium Prize for quite a while. Per the rules listed https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millenni... , Clay Mathematics Institute have some requirements to make this process deliberately slow. 1) The solution must be published in a qualifying outlet, i.e. a peer-reviewed math journal. Publishing on your own website (which is what OpenA…

> or posting arXiv does not count

The Poincaré conjecture guy also broke that rule. They wanted to give him the prize anyway but he refused. OpenAI announced they would also not claim the prize.

Looks like no one wants this prize lol

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#15

Post by tancop »

tristanj wrote: post #8

It's worth mentioning that OpenAI will not be eligible for the Millennium Prize for quite a while. Per the rules listed https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millenni... , Clay Mathematics Institute have some requirements to make this process deliberately slow. 1) The solution must be published in a qualifying outlet, i.e. a peer-reviewed math journal. Publishing on your own website (which is what OpenA…

> The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI. CMI may, in its discretion, relax or remove one or more of the conditions listed in Section 6(e) above if it has received advice from experts in the field of the Problem, chosen by CMI, that a published solution is likely to be correct.

Looks like even a blog post is good enough, they just need to do the review by themselves.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#17

Post by tgv »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #4

> Today, CMI shares in the excitement of the global mathematical community as we contemplate the announcement that the Navier-Stokes problem has apparently been settled. We hope to see waves of new human understanding unleashed as the innovations behind this work are analysed and interrogated. That “apparently” feels load-bearing

What a load od corporate drivel. "Interrogated"? Was their need for words so dire?

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#18

Post by rramadass »

baby wrote: post #10
Legend2440 wrote: post #7

Their rules PDF says they won't accept any solution until at least two years after publication in a qualifying outlet. This allows time for the mathematical community to review and accept new results. As the OpenAI proof hasn't been officially published yet, the clock hasn't started ticking.

It’s easy to verify the lean statement, you don’t need to read the proof. That is part of the breakthrough

If the Lean initial-problem-setup/statements/assumptions/etc. aren't correct then the proof is meaningless. Lean does not know what it is that it is proving i.e. it does not have any semantic understanding but only executes formal logic.

Humans need to verify everything.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#19

Post by drexlspivey »

unknown-unknown wrote: post #9

In my opinion, I think the Clay Mathematics Institute deserves some criticism for all the drama surrounding these problems. Mathematicians know that you can make problems arbitrarily complex, and declaring problems with large prizes attached to them can lead to a lot of competition and drama. I feel that mathematics should be free from competitions and the pursuit of glory. However, after reading the open letter sign…

> In my opinion, I think the Clay Mathematics Institute deserves some criticism for all the drama surrounding these problems. Mathematicians know that you can make problems arbitrarily complex, and declaring problems with large prizes attached to them can lead to a lot of competition and drama. I feel that mathematics should be free from competitions and the pursuit of glory.

Currently 0/2 Millenium problem solvers claimed the prize money so clearly money is not their motivation for tackling the problem.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#20

Post by noodletheworld »

tancop wrote: post #15
tristanj wrote: post #8

It's worth mentioning that OpenAI will not be eligible for the Millennium Prize for quite a while. Per the rules listed https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millenni... , Clay Mathematics Institute have some requirements to make this process deliberately slow. 1) The solution must be published in a qualifying outlet, i.e. a peer-reviewed math journal. Publishing on your own website (which is what OpenA…

> The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI. CMI may, in its discretion, relax or remove one or more of the conditions listed in Section 6(e) above if it has received advice from experts in the field of the Problem, chosen by CMI, that a published solution is likely to be correct. Looks like even a blog post is good e…

My opinion is that it is pretty clear that they’re not going to do that.

> The rules governing the prizes describe the process for evaluating what has been achieved and for assigning credit. The process is deliberately unhurried, but we will provide updates.

I think “you don’t get anything straight away for rushing your AI into the maths problems, not even credit” aligns pretty fairly with what the fields medalists are concerned with.

Post reply on HN