4 ms·
> A physicist or pure Mather social looks at Navier-Stokes and says, “Oh, we know how that works, nothing to do there I guess” I don't know if that's the best
by kaashif 4y ago
> A physicist or pure Mather social looks at Navier-Stokes and says, “Oh, we know how that works, nothing to do there I guess”
I don't know if that's the best example, it's one of the Millennium Prize problems to prove that smooth solutions always exist to the Navier-Stokes equations. Pure mathematicians do, by and large, still consider proving the existence of things to be "something".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here.
- skellington 4y agoHe was simplifying for clarify, but what he said was just another form of what the person above him said which was: >> no matter what problem you can think of, either it has already been solved to the highest level of abstraction, or it's an unsolved and famous problem, or not worthwhile/trivial. << So, Millennium Prize is an unsolved and famous problem like Reimann Hypothesis, etc..