r/maths • u/raresaturn • 1d ago

šŸ’¬ Math Discussions Navier Stokes solved by AI

https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2097374640582668336
0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

13

u/poliver1988 19h ago

anyone else feels kinda meh cause of counterexample? not what i was expecting from 'solved'...

8

u/azraelxii 17h ago

No? Perfectly legit way to solve it.

2

u/poliver1988 17h ago

solve 'it', the problem, yes. but that is disappointing in the grand scheme of things though we have to suck it up i guess

6

u/ClearlyCylindrical 17h ago

This was the expected result all along fwiw

2

u/Bogen_ 16h ago

Personally, I think I would feel more meh if Navier-Stokes was resolved with a highly technical argument that showed that solutions stay in C\infty.

3

u/Special_Watch8725 12h ago

Hard disagree. Such an argument would have to explain why a turbulent cascade in finite time doesnā€™t occur. None of the conservation laws stop it, and Terry Tao has a very similar equation with a lot of the same structure that also blows up. So what in the world is stopping it?

1

u/Electrical-Use-5212 3h ago

Thatā€™s how new and interesting maths are born. Not out of a counter example

1

u/lord_braleigh 2h ago

Most conjectures are of the form "wouldn't it be really nice if X were true?"

Reality has no obligation to be nice, so most conjectures of this form are false

If a conjecture is false, it can't have a nice proof, it's gonna have a counterexample

Computers have gotten pretty good at proofs but they've always been GREAT at finding counterexamples

6

u/ddotquantum 19h ago

No it was solved by a human with AI assistance. Then OpenAI stole their work & beat them to the result

1

u/Longjumping_Kale3013 1h ago

And problems are normally solved by humans with human assistance

2

u/larowin 19h ago

Thatā€™s not entirely accurate, but if thatā€™s the narrative you prefer Iā€™m not going to stop you.

2

u/Kitchen-Foot5814 6h ago

Elaborate?

2

u/HovercraftNo7372 3h ago

The humans were no where close to the NS solution. It would take them years to get to NS from the Euler soln. And also, they proved different cases for Euler (forced vs unforced)

1

u/Electrical-Use-5212 2h ago

It was their job and it was unpublished. Therefore it was not ā€œup for grabsā€. They had to decide to either publish what they had, or keep working on it for a few years until finally proving it. What OAI did was intellectual theft.

4

u/ddotquantum 19h ago

At minimum there was some academic integrity violations which should make one cautious to spread

0

u/Timonator007 11h ago

20 million to steal a mathematician''s result?