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

91–100 of 292 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#91

Post by jltsiren »

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…

It's possible that Clay Mathematics Institute will not award the prize at all. The spirit of the rules seems to be that the result can be attributed clearly to one or more individual mathematicians. If the attribution remains unclear (maybe because the main contributions were made by AI), the rules include an option for not awarding the prize at all.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#92

Post by fragmede »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #50
kaffekaka wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but a big part of the problem right now is that two big labs have monopoly on the resources and they for sure are not working for the benefit of mankind. The Startrek future is still a long way out.

The Star Trek future may be right on schedule. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/World_War_III World War III was the last of Earth's three world wars, lasting from approximately 2026 to 2053. The conflict involved nuclear cataclysm as well as genocide and eco-terrorism. The post-atomic horror in the aftermath persisted as late as 2079. The war was preceded by the Eugenics Wars and the Second Civil War, all of whic…

> some 30% of the Human population, at least six hundred million people

The math nerd in me has to point out that this means there was only 2 billion humans for 30% to be 600 million (though it does say at least). Currently we have 8 billion humans on this planet or so. There must have been a culling before WWIII in their universe that they failed to mention.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#93

Post by c7b »

eru wrote: post #59
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.

I'm not sure it actually makes a difference. OpenAI doesn't care about the million dollars in any case. And the judgement that they did it is independent of whether the Clay people agree: you can make up your own mind and so can everyone else. Though it would be funny if no one ever bothers publishing the result in an appropriate journal, and thus the prize technically can never be claimed.

Even funnier that it wouldn't even be the first time that happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#94

Post by seanhunter »

eru wrote: post #60
seanhunter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You absolutely need to read the lean proof firstly to assess the correctness of the proposition it is proving (ie in this case that it is actually proving or otherwise the smoothness of navier-stokes in R^3 and not something else) and secondly to determine whether the proof is “honest” in the sense given here https://lean-lang.org/doc/reference/latest/ValidatingProofs/

You don't need to read the lean proof for that, only the statement.

You need to read the lean proof (not just the statement of the proposition) to assess whether the proof is honest. The link I provided is the lean prover community firstly officially agreeing with that claim and secondly explaining why that is the case.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#95

Post by bmacho »

tgv wrote: post #17
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?

It's a common (most common?) word in mathematics in this meaning.

You interrogate a proof.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#96

Post by aaron695 »

adastra22 wrote: post #31
auggierose wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Publish in academic language means accepted peer-reviewed paper.

[dead]

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#97

Post by xanderlewis »

famouswaffles wrote: post #58
xanderlewis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has and will. Are you going to back that assertion up at all, or just repeat it like that other viral thought-terminating cliche: ‘this is the worst the models will ever be’?

Yes. This is the worst the models will ever be. Perhaps you should start paying attention to that now.

Sorry, but I doubt you have anything interesting to contribute and probably have no expertise in mathematics. I’d rather hear from those who do.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#98

Post by da_chicken »

thih9 wrote: post #78
drexlspivey wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My honest take is that it was intentional. But yes, Poe’s Law will get referenced a lot in the next months/years I guess.

I think it was obviously intentional because they haven't accepted the solution yet.

The purpose is to announce that they are aware of the claims of a solution, not to announce that a solution has been accepted. They're waiting on the required two year timeline before announcing whether or not the solution is accepted. Their writing reflects that they are explicitly NOT accepting a solution until then.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#99

Post by da_chicken »

auggierose wrote: post #77
athrowaway3z wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By peers. Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment. The cultural/social question you might ask today is "why (keep) them?". At which point people will naturally ask you to make a strong case for "why not them?".

> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.

Amongst all this rhetorical brush-beating, what were you trying to teach the snakes?

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#100

Post by glimshe »

jltsiren wrote: post #91
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…

It's possible that Clay Mathematics Institute will not award the prize at all. The spirit of the rules seems to be that the result can be attributed clearly to one or more individual mathematicians. If the attribution remains unclear (maybe because the main contributions were made by AI), the rules include an option for not awarding the prize at all.

Wouldn't the proof be attributed to the people who operated the AI? After all, it took more than writing a "prove the navier Stokes Clay problem" prompt.
Post reply on HN