chaostaco

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by chaostaco 8d ago

   I spent ages staring at Milkdrop in the Winamp days. Thanks for the links.
2. 2.▲
   by chaostaco 8d ago

   I believe a core element of the smoothness problem solution is that it does blow up in finite time, even with viscosity. Perhaps an expert could provide a more accurate response, but here is how ChatGPT tried to explain it to me: "In t
3. 3.▲
   by chaostaco 8d ago

   I'm no expert in this field, but my understanding is that it would occur in the concentrating vortex core. The orange part would become narrower and narrower (the OpenAI article says "like spaghetti"), and the velocity in th
4. 4.▲
   Navier-Stokes Visualized as 1kB i386 demos(juandecos.github.io)

   22 points by chaostaco 13d ago|2 comments
5. 5.▲
   by chaostaco 13d ago

   I was making a web project about some of my 1996 era 386 graphics code when I saw the visualizations related to the recent solution to the smoothness problem of Navier-Stokes and thought "that would look cool as a 90s-era demo".
6. 6.▲
   by chaostaco 4y ago

   You already hit the important part with "as long as the premises are logical". Since the premises here are flawed, the proof falls apart. It isn't a flaw in formalized proofs. Getting flawless premises is the challenge for
7. 7.▲
   by chaostaco 4y ago

   It is fun to see these historical arguments formalized like this, but they should remember to mention how flawed these arguments have proven to be over time. P3 has the same flaw as Zeno's paradoxes, where there is a false assumption t