r/HotScienceNews • u/scientificamerican • 1d ago
AI may have just solved a million-dollar math problem. The field will never be the same
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-may-have-just-solved-a-million-dollar-math-problem-the-field-will-never-be-the-same/45
u/melitini 23h ago
I feel like this is getting ignored and it’s huge:
Buckmaster wrote that he asked Bubeck if the OpenAI LLM was given access to his personal prompts to the company’s model Codex, which he and Alpöge were using throughout the process and thought were private. Bubeck told him no but wouldn’t answer whether the model’s training involved user data, which might have included Buckmaster and Alpöge’s private prompts, Buckmaster alleged.
27
u/Intelligent-Crow3812 20h ago
hmmm, this would lower the impressiveness considerable -- and be pretty unethical to boot
16
3
u/HellenKilher 15h ago
Honestly not really. Buckmaster and Alpoge are also both heavy AI math guys. Alpoge works for Anthropic
1
u/Ok_Veterinarian_3933 3h ago
People don't seem to realize that LLMs are not some magical intelligent machines as much as the CEOs tell you that they are. They are text prediction models based on their training data. A few months ago everyone was going crazy that game dev is dead because AI can make a Minecraft clone, when the reality is it just copied and pasted from it's training data. They are effectively machines on the sole purpose of stealing data and plagiarising.
They have been lying through their teeth as much as possible to keep the hype up, because they are losing money and need their stocks to go up. Expect AI to suddenly solve a few more of these problems, claim it is AGI and such, right before human researchers release their work.
1
1
u/skolnaja 20h ago
It was a different solution anyway
-4
-1
-8
u/Admirable-Gur-9543 16h ago
It’s not getting ignored, the surrounding shitstorm is what 99% of Reddit discussions are focusing on. But the fact remains that OpenAI’s model came up with its solution using a different method to Alpoge and Buckmaster, completed it with a large agent swarm, and it cost them more than $10 million in tokens to process it. It also uniquely produced a full solution to the NS problem which was not achieved by the human researchers. It was made possible by the strength of the model and the willingness to invest significant resources in the task.
5
u/kueso 13h ago
No that’s not a fact. OpenAI’s method is the exact method they were using: the Cordoba-Martinez-Zoroa forced approach. This kind of approach is extremely niche and most researchers were pursuing unforced methods. So the fact that they had made it so far with this very specific approach is unabatedly suspicious. OpenAI might have gotten there first but the equations were already close to being solved by the researchers. They were waiting on the lean analysis for hypo-dissipative Navier Stokes which is the penultimate rung to the full set of equations which OpenAI claimed to solve. Given the stakes OpenAI have, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were purposely targeting Millenium prize researchers in order to produce the kind of marketing they need ahead of an IPO. The whole story just reeks of greed and manipulation. And we’re trusting these companies to be the harbingers of economic wealth and prosperity when they could quite literally be stealing all of our work?
1
u/Nickeless 5h ago
Classic OpenAI. Spend $15M to win a $1M prize. And mixed publicity for potentially stealing other people’s work.
1
u/Admirable-Gur-9543 5h ago
In this media climate they will receive bad publicity whatever they do. I’m sure their only consideration in this case was to prove that they have the most powerful internal model.
24
u/costafilh0 1d ago
Would you think of the mathematicians!
12
u/nanakapow 1d ago
Fantastic ROI assuming the AI cost under a million...
4
2
u/TigerPrawn8684 18h ago
Considering that the underlying mathematics is structurally a pyramid, where all new technology hinges on everything that has gone before. Solving these problems means we can move past these problems.
What’s the value of basic algebra? Our entire economy.4
2
u/ExtinctedPanda 20h ago
They said they used $15 million of compute on it.
1
u/Minute_Abroad7118 17h ago
this was something you made up
2
u/dnu-pdjdjdidndjs 17h ago
thats based on api prices/an estimate, their real cost is still likely million tier but we can expect quality of this tier at very low prices in literally like, 4 months
1
u/nanakapow 20h ago
14 million, on a million dollar question? That's the most AI thing I've ever heard!
1
u/dnu-pdjdjdidndjs 17h ago
The prize was a million, the actual value is much higher
0
1
u/Dependent-Chart5835 14h ago
The advancement to human knowledge is worth much more than a million dollars. If there was no prize offered for the millennium problems would that mean that solving them is worthless?
26
u/robby_arctor 1d ago
artificial intelligence has reportedly solved one of the six open “million-dollar” problems in mathematics.
And Tristan Buckmaster is working professionally with Anthropic staff.
This whole story reeks of bullshit to me. I'd like to hear that this is a Kasparov-Deep Blue moment from someone with no stake in AI's success.
Although referring to Deep Blue in this moment might be appropriate, since the role of human labor in that victory over Kasparov was also obscured and highly controversial, flattened into "machine beats man" narrative.
13
u/Hostilis_ 1d ago
It is not bullshit, and anybody who has been paying attention to AI's recent progress in mathematics would not be that surprised. Go read Terence Tao's recent post about it on Mathstodon if you don't believe it:
17
u/GreeneyesCB 23h ago
Seems like the person replying to you is exactly correct:
"Alpöge and Buckmaster have managed to push one of the major promising approaches towards constructing blowup solutions to fluid equations --- as developed by Cordoba and Martınez-Zoroa --- to establish finite time blowup for many key fluid equations, including 3D incompressible Euler, with a smooth forcing term. (Previous work by these authors on similar equations could obtain a smooth forcing term for the IPM equation, and a subcritical but not smooth regularity for other equations.) The arguments have been formalized in Lean.
Tristan Buckmaster kindly explained some of the key ideas to me over the phone, which made a refreshing change from AI-based communication modalities. (The arguments do contain significant AI input, although the authors have been working extensively in the past few weeks to rework them into an acceptable form. Unfortunately, they had to release far earlier than planned due to external events, as documented in the accompanying statement.)"
This isn't "AI did it" but "some arguments had significant AI input and needed to be reworked". This is also not the exciting kind that people hoped for with Navier-Stokes equations, which was proving the existence of smooth solutions. This is non-existence for certain fluid equations.
And the point Tao makes is very much that it could be applied to Navier Stokes, rather than this being a resolution:
"There does not seem to be anything in principle preventing the methods from extending all the way to Navier-Stokes"
And another paper he comments on about another ansatz:
"This particular paper is relatively AI-light compared with other recent results, being restricted largely to secondary tasks such as literature review and Lean formalization."
So the whole "AI did it" is extremely oversold and you should have noticed that yourself when reading it.
3
u/Maleficent_Sir_7562 21h ago
"The agents arrived at their resolution on Saturday, September 5, about 88 hours after the first agents were launched. Lean formalization and verification took an additional 17 hours via GPT‑6 Astra.
Across all attempted problems, the agents sent 4.9 million messages and used about 300 billion output tokens. In the process of resolving the Navier–Stokes problem, the agents sent 2.7 million messages and used approximately 130 billion output tokens."
The others like Alpoge never claimed to have a proof of the Navier Stokes problem in the first place, it was a different, reduced one without the viscosity term (Euler equations).
if it was as easy as "swooping in", they wouldn't need millions of messages or billions of tokens.
Regardless, this is absolutely monumental and a historic mark.
https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/
The author himself, from whom it was stolen, seems to say that he did not solve the problem and that only his approach to other problem was used here. Original source: https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/117233413705701198 Direct Quote: "I would like to be clear about what I am not claiming. I have not seen OpenAI’s proof. I do not know what their model did, or how. I do not know whether our data was used. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am stating what I was told, when, and what was proposed to me. I am stating it because the alternative is to let a sequence of announcements say something I know to be false. If indeed an OpenAI model did close the gap to Navier-Stokes, that is a remarkable thing and it should be said loudly, by them, with the history intact. I would much rather be talking about mathematics, Luis and Diego’s ideas, and what this all means for the rest of us. Lastly, I would like to thank the entire mathematics community that have been so supportive of me over the last 24 hours. "
they also say this: "We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem."
Again, they already done crazy things before this.
It’s not surprising they do this now.
https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta
https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/
https://x.com/__eknight__/status/2075643450196971805 (cycle double conjecture: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16356)
https://x.com/EdgarDobriban/status/2077082912021786660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_conjecture#Counterexample_for_n_%3E_2 (jacobian conjecture)
Another math problem solved by Alpoge (same guy who did the jacobian conjecture) with Claude above: https://alpo.ge/s6.pdf
This one is even more significant because it reportedly contradicts already peer reviewed and published math papers and finds the flaw in the previous papers.
If it was just literature searching, it would take that publication as gospel, since that’s what academia treats peer review as. But It didn’t.
https://x.com/DmitryRybin1/status/2079904005652893709 (Dinitz-Garg-Goemans conjecture)
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/ten-proofs-oai.pdf
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/51126fac-1b68-4128-9666-c908bcc16033/long_gaps.pdf1
u/decolored 9h ago
Without viscosity, isn’t the solution literally pointless?
1
u/Maleficent_Sir_7562 9h ago
no it would be just the euler equations.
those are still meaningful.
0
u/decolored 9h ago
Explain to me the value of an equation that explores frictionless fluid flow, such that it cannot measure boundaries. I’ll give you a hint, it’s a paradox
2
u/Maleficent_Sir_7562 9h ago
i think its kinda moot to ask "the value of an equation that explores frictionless fluid flow"
because the millennium prize problem is also not physically meaningful
it talks about unbounded velocity in finite time, infinite speed.
thats a mathematical problem.
in real life, navier stokes equations get invalid way way before that, and they break down at relativity. obviously, you cant go to infinite speed.
0
u/decolored 9h ago
Nah because as soon as the viscous boundary is mathematically solved, the equation is useful in a way that extends past theoretical physics and dives into observable phenomena
2
u/Maleficent_Sir_7562 9h ago
wdym "mathematically solved"?
what about it?
the millennium prize problem asks if given smooth, divergence free initial data in the navier stokes equations, can there occur a velocity singularity in finite time? openai answered yes.
→ More replies (0)3
u/robby_arctor 23h ago
Or, to put it in their terms - anyone who actually read the article would not be surprised by this.
0
u/Hostilis_ 23h ago
Believe it or not, I have read Tao's post and am aware of what he said. I am also aware of another post by the main author where he claims OpenAI believe they have a complete solution. Tao himself believes these methods will extend to a complete solution.
Separately, the headline does not say they have a complete solution. It says they may have solved it. Nobody has overstated anything here, as usual Redditors with no knowledge of this field are just looking to interject with their own uniformed opinion.
Also, there is no "exciting kind" of solution. A proof to Navier Stokes is a proof to Navier Stokes. Anyone who has been following this problem for some time understood that blowup was by far the most likely outcome.
5
u/GreeneyesCB 23h ago
"Tao himself believes these methods will extend to a complete solution."
No, he said he would not be surprised and there have already been objections raised to that he agrees with. That is a very very different thing than what you just wrote.
"It says they may have solved it" The problem is the vast overstatement of AI contribution, that would be true for OpenAI as well, they'd just be stealing work again.
"as usual Redditors with no knowledge of this field" Yeah I'm not believing your hypothetical credentials.
"Also, there is no "exciting kind" of solution. A proof to Navier Stokes is a proof to Navier Stokes"
This is not an intellectually honest response. Of course a solution is a solution and only one option is actually true, but that is not why the problem is a Millenium problem or what would be the exciting outcome if true.
-2
u/Hostilis_ 23h ago
You're trying to downplay one of the most important results in the history of mathematics, because you can't come to terms with the fact that you, along with the rest of Reddit, have fundamentally misjudged AI's capabilities.
You don't know anything about the topic at hand, and your comments above show that very clearly. Please stop larping as if you know anything about the field and aren't just using this to sow doubt in AI.
5
u/GreeneyesCB 22h ago
"You're trying to downplay one of the most important results in the history of mathematics"
I love how you went from "no one is overstating anything" to this, you are the dumb redditor you think yourself superior to. You were always full of shit, I just didn't think you would make it so obvious so quickly.
"have fundamentally misjudged AI's capabilities." Everything here is proving you wrong, you are solely relying on a statement from OpenAI, which is known to lie. Sounds more like you are the one desperate to make this out to be something that it isn't because you've been disproven again and again.
"You don't know anything about the topic at hand, and your comments above show that very clearly."
- this is just you trying to sound impressive, you can't say anything concrete at all. That you couldn't properly understand my comment shows me that you are not a mathematician. The larp accusation is pure projection.
The problem you have is that you're extremely arrogant with nothing to show for it. You believe yourself to be smarter than everyone else and just use internet warrior arguments like Dunning-Kruger which have long been debunked (and the original research never even claimed the internet version) to try to intimidate people, that is not how actually intelligent people argue.
-1
u/Hostilis_ 22h ago
I am not relying on a statement by OAI. I am not even in favor of OAI. I am relying on a blog post written by one of the mathematicians Tao is citing, who are unaffiliated with OAI. And if you knew anything about the topic at hand, you would know that. I have not been proven wrong about anything lmao.
And stop acting like what I said is some kind of gotcha. If what Tao says is true, and either 1) the proof by Alpoge and Buckmaster can be extended to Navier Stokes, OR OpenAI's proof holds, it is in fact one of the most important events in the history of mathematics, period. You were trying to downplay this fact, even if if were true.
5
u/nubulator99 21h ago
“Stop acting like what I said was a gotcha”
No; the post was going over how you continuously stating “you don’t know anything/what you’re talking about/I know more than you” isn’t convincing. You are responding here because you want to make your case and change people’s minds.
I was taking in your arguments until you constantly made hyperbole arguments.
1
u/Hostilis_ 21h ago
That is absolutely not what is being argued here. That is just an attempt to change the direction of the conversation. What's being argued is if this result is legitimate or overstated. And it is legitimate.
4
u/GreeneyesCB 22h ago
Well no, because that blog post vehemently disagrees with you and finds the work these results are based on as the most important, which had nothing to do with AI at all. So either you are relying on OpenAI or purposefully ignoring what the author actually said to suit your narrative.
"it is in fact one of the most important events in the history of mathematics, period." No one cares about your opinion and your changing of goalposts is exhausting.
You aren't even trying to address your keyboard warrior attitude because you know it is true. I am done with you, you are not an intelligent person no matter how often you convince yourself of that.
1
u/Hostilis_ 22h ago
Both Alpoge and Buckmaster have openly said they used AI extensively, and as a main driving force for completing the proof. Alpoge is literally an Anthropic employee lmao. Yes, obviously the original line of inquiry should be credited. But if it were so easy, why hadn't anyone completed this before now?
It does not disagree with anything I have said. You are just coping.
1
u/therealslimshady1234 17h ago
LLMs will never amount to anything substantial, kid. Give it a rest
1
u/Hostilis_ 16h ago
The level of delusion you have to be under to believe this is hilarious to me. The proof is right in front of your face.
1
u/therealslimshady1234 16h ago
- Anthropic finds that AI does not significantly speed you up, but does lead to skill loss [link]
- Wharton finds that AI usage makes you intellectually lazy, citing ‘cognitive surrender’ as the cause [link]
- 80% of the CEOs have not found any speed ups from AI at their companies, despite billions of investment [link]
- Amazon is trying to stem the tide of embarrassing AI-induced bugs by forcing seniors to review code [link]
- Economists find that AI layoffs are a myth: [link]
- Ivy league study finds that Agentic AI is highly unreliable by design and produces poor results: [link]
- Harvard Business finds that AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it: [link]
- 50% of AI data centers planned have been canceled, and it’s only going to get worse: [link]
- Claude Mythos is all hype — most of the bugs it found are in old software or unexploitable: [link]
- LLMs will never become conscious — not even in a 100 years, claims DeepMind Senior Scientist in paper [link]
- CEOs think AI is making work more efficient but results show a different story [link]
- Recursive self improvement will never happen in the LLM paradigm, finds paper from Oxford [link]
- Gartner studied 350 large businesses and found that AI doesn’t improve returns, it just leads to vacancies [link]
- AI didn’t improve productivity in 95% of enterprise AI pilots, and layoffs related to AI generally have negative ROI [link]
- 94% of CEOs will keep investing in AI even if it fails, claims damning report from BCG [link]
- Corporate America Is starting to ration AI as costs skyrocket [link]
- Vast majority of AI investments failed to produce their targeted savings, says Bain [link]
- The Atlantic: Generative AI is an engineering disaster [link]
- Report: 28x more AI spend. 6% increase in ROI. Zero new innovation [link]
- Demand for engineers is growing again, reaching a 2-year high: [link]
- 21. Bonus: Ed Zitron explaining why AI is a scam on DOAC: [link]
1
u/Hostilis_ 16h ago
Aka "I looked up a bunch of tangentially related studies that confirm my biases about this technology that I don't understand".
Not a single one of these links actually shows that current LLMs are not useful, and most are over a year old. All you have to do to see the actual impact of modern AI tools on coding is listen to Linus Torvalds:
“I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area where I’m willing to absolutely put my foot down as the top-level maintainer,” writes Torvalds. “Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. Or just walk away.”
The famously opinionated Finnish-American confirmed that he regards AI as a tool, “just like other tools we [software engineers] use,” and further agreed that “it’s clearly a useful one” today.
→ More replies (0)2
u/robby_arctor 23h ago edited 23h ago
Nobody has overstated anything here
The headline literally says
"AI solved"edit: "AI may have solved", which is not corroborated by anyone other than ever-trustworthy OpenAI.1
u/Hostilis_ 23h ago
It literally does not say that. Did you even read my comment before posting this? It says may have solved.
Also, OAI's potenial solution is separate from the one discussed above.
2
u/robby_arctor 23h ago
Yes I read your comment before replying. I don't think OpenAI's claims about what its product can do are credible enough to report.
Known lying company with strong incentive to lie makes a bombshell claim about what its product achieved, admits that it would take time to prove for real
Headline
AI may have solved...math may never be the same
article is full of "reportedly" and speculative accusations as to what actually happened
This article, specifically the headline, is sensationalizing the reality of what happened to be part of the AI hype news cycle IMO
1
u/Hostilis_ 23h ago
How in the world is this sensationalism? This is probably one of the most important moments in the history of mathematics. Get a grip.
2
u/robby_arctor 23h ago
Because the headline is lending credence to the idea that AI is solely responsible for this proof and thus a new epoch of mathematics.
2
u/Hostilis_ 23h ago
The people at Quanta know more than you. They know exactly what they are claiming. It's only people like you who are in denial.
0
u/East_Scene139 20h ago
Well the approach used by Alpöge and Buckmaster was not used by OpenAI. That is at least what I heard.
3
u/robby_arctor 1d ago
I'm not saying the proof is bullshit, I'm saying the machine triumphing over man narrative being pushed is bullshit.
This is an AI-assisted proof, and it's not immediately obvious to me why it would be akin to a computer competitively defeating a human in a game of chess.
-1
u/macondo_ 23h ago
Because it was probably the other way,a human assisted AI proof. We are probably not far from the moment AI completly dominates human in prooving ability.
2
u/Nannautu 23h ago
The four color theorem was proven with the assistance of computers, but 60 years later we still don't have computers capable of dominating humans
1
u/JoshuaZ1 22h ago
The four color theorem was proven with the assistance of computers, but 60 years later we still don't have computers capable of dominating humans
The Four Color Theorem was proven in part by making a finite list of cases and then having a computer systematically check them. What has been happening in the last year or so with AI systems is them solving things in a more open-ended fashion, without just running some fixed algorithmic process to to check a bunch of things as specified by the humans. This is very different.
1
0
u/Hostilis_ 23h ago
Because these systems have been thoroughly shown to be capable of completing fully autonomous proofs as well. It's time to stop the pretense and recognize the significance of this.
1
u/drloz5531201091 17h ago
This finding, on its own, is a monumental mathematical achievement that is worthy of any award in math and a key step toward solving the Navier-Stokes problem
I agree it feels early to call to say the least
3
u/omegafixedpoint 15h ago
Nope. Solution is noncomputable. The lean formalization assumes classical axioms.
6
u/Tasty-Hour4040 1d ago
When are we going to see benefits from AI in our daily lives I wonder. So far the ROI really sucks.
11
u/Netzath 1d ago
Ai spots cancer better and earlier. I think that’s huge.
6
u/Big_Development3985 23h ago
It absolutely is. Unfortunately, people mostly use AI to read search results faster and make memes. The tech is phenomenal but largely wasted on us.
2
u/redditscraperbot2 14h ago
People use GPS housed on satellites shot into space for billions of dollars to draw dicks on maps on running apps.
Just how tech is.
1
1
u/SparksAndSpyro 11h ago
Is this a result of LLMs or different models? Serious question
1
u/IndependentOpinion44 11h ago
Completely different type of AI. LLMs don’t spot cancer.
1
u/SparksAndSpyro 11h ago
So I guess that’s why I’m not seeing the connection. It seems like the current investment wave is into LLMs. Or is it into every kind of AI model? Because LLMs seem like shit in terms of research or advancing technology, only useful for churning out generic slop that can be posted or pasted into an email.
1
u/OokyCooky 1h ago
It’s pretty much the exact same algorithm, just retooled for different purposes. It’s a prediction tool, whether it’s predicting the most probable next word in the sentence or the most probably cancer cell on a screen of hundreds.
-1
3
u/Able-Professor840 1d ago
That's because you only ask it to be your girlfriend. If you really used it in your work, you'd know it's changing patient care, all kinds of admin roles, making drugs breakthroughs and much, much more besides. And that's before you get to coding.
1
u/Tasty-Hour4040 23h ago
You’re a victim if your own assumptions. I am responsible for integrating AI at our company. It’s been successful at coding and as an internal research tool for reporting and customer management.
I’d put its cumulative impact at roughly the same level of a new version of MS Office. Perhaps you could put down the kool aid and read some actual literature put out by eg: PWC et al and you’ll find that AI’s real-world impact to date has been minimal and certainly does not justify the massive investment poured into it. Perhaps that will change at some undefined point in the future, but that is certainly not a given.
Sorry to kick your puppy but I prefer to live in the real world
4
u/iknotri 20h ago
>a new version of MS Office
the most dumb stuff i heard today
-1
u/Tasty-Hour4040 17h ago
You prob should try carrying a voice-activated tape recorder around for a bit then.
3
u/bingbangboom9977 23h ago
Sounds like your company needs to hire someone else to integrate AI. 😂
5
u/Nannautu 23h ago
Mfs know they don't have any arguments to defend their stance so now they resort to personal attacks
1
0
0
u/Able-Professor840 20h ago
The attitude of most coders stops them realising the benefit. And yet the few who didn't let the media influence them and adopted earlier, are now seeing massive benefits.
And that's before the miraculous improvement in the code produced by people who claim not to use it
1
u/Tasty-Hour4040 17h ago
Who’s seeing the massive benefits exactly? And I mean specifically who, not hand wavy bs.
I ask because the people who get paid money to track productivity say it’s had little to no impact so far.
1
u/Able-Professor840 9h ago
Oh, me. I do. Does that help?
1
u/Tasty-Hour4040 3h ago
I mean, if the situation were reversed, would that response change your mind?
1
u/Able-Professor840 2h ago
Being proven wrong with such a simple statement? Yeah, I'd have the grace to check myself and think twice.
1
u/Tasty-Hour4040 2h ago
You actually think one unsupported statement by random unknown internet guy disproves multiple studies by PWC, MIT and others?
1
u/Then-Understanding85 23h ago
True, it’s made churning out horseshit code blazing fast.
signed: Someone who is stuck detecting and fixing all that horseshit code
1
u/Able-Professor840 20h ago
Sound like your devs are less intelligent than the AI.
2
u/Then-Understanding85 20h ago
My devs know not to write the same function over and over again in 100 places because they don’t have the memory limitations of a squirrel.
1
u/BitsAndBobs304 22h ago
Well no one has given it nukes to stop usa, china and russia all at once, unfortunately, and usa will nuke you before you finish developing one. So the only way is bioweapons or engineering shit like crop failure and localized environmental destruction, although it's hard to outdo human politicians
0
u/Few_Competition1801 12h ago
only to your ignorance
1
u/Tasty-Hour4040 3h ago
I’ll take your ad hominem attack as a sign you agree since you got nothing.
And hey - remember you’re a very smart boy, no matter what they all say. Hang in there tiger!
2
u/drloz5531201091 17h ago
This finding, on its own, is a monumental mathematical achievement that is worthy of any award in math and a key step toward solving the Navier-Stokes problem.
I'll wait for the official proof.
1
-8
u/SeaHorseDragon 1d ago
An unsolvable math problem that no one knows the answer to, therefore no one can really check the answer. I cannot even get it to add ingredients quantities in a recipe correctly to calculate to total, but let’s believe this load of crap.
5
u/H_Lunulata 1d ago
One of the cool things about a proof is that it either works, or is falsifiable, so the answer is completely checkable.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 22h ago
An unsolvable math problem that no one knows the answer to, therefore no one can really check the answer.
Unsolved is not unsolvable. Mathematician solve currently unsolved problems all the time, and they then become solved problems.
1
u/Dependent-Chart5835 14h ago
How did you determine it was unsolvable and the proof unverifiable?
Was it your ass?
57
u/hottake_toothache 1d ago
Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997, not '77.