4 ms·
you're as sure of what you say as wrong about it.
by robotpepi 29d ago
you're as sure of what you say as wrong about it.
- Toutouxc 29d agoNote that your reply has exactly 0 value for anyone who doesn’t already know where and how the parent poster is wrong.
- robotpepi 28d agofair enough
- jgalt212 29d agowhich part is wrong? > For any practical application, numerical solvers for Navier-Stokes already exist and do a good job. or > This proof is just checking the boxes for mathematicians.
- hyperbovine 29d agoThe same could be said of your post. OpenAI (claim to) show the existence of *a* finite time singularity. It could stimulate more research in PDE solving, and maybe physics, but it has zero impact on practical applications, that I can see. The Millenium problems were chosen based on hardness not practical relevance.
- robotpepi 28d agoI was referring to the "it's just mathematicians checking boxes" claim
- CyberDildonics 29d agoIf that were true you could explain it. There are lots of solvers for navier stokes simulations and they do a good job.
- hunterpayne 28d agoTrue, this is just a much bigger one with a vastly larger amounts of hardware.
- robotpepi 28d agoI was referring mostly to > This proof is just checking the boxes for mathematicians There are already quite a lot of summaries of the story that lead to the solution, and the impact that the intermediate results have had.