Regularity of asymptotically axisymmetric solutions to the 3D Navier-Stokes equations with analytic forcing · HackerPapers discussions

Regularity of asymptotically axisymmetric solutions to the 3D Navier-Stokes equations with analytic forcing — mentioned by paulceton

Sat, 17 Oct 2026 06:08:48 GMT

I’ve been a math professor for about ten years, and I think people outside the field misread what makes mathematicians angry, sad, and worried. Interviews that make it into the media tend to go with “AI is killing mathematics,” maybe because that gets clicks. The reality is more complicated. Some mathematicians work on well-posed, famous problems, but most mathematical research is about questions that aren't well-posed yet. A typical example is finding where the boundary of existence lies for some equation: which meaningful conditions guarantee a solution, and how far can you weaken them? You…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Regularity of asymptotically axisymmetric solutions to the 3D Navier-Stokes equations with analytic forcing — mentioned by dwroberts

Sat, 10 Oct 2026 21:44:35 GMT

There is already a pre-print making the claim that the Navier-Stokes solution provided by OpenAI does not meet the criteria required by the prize (https://arxiv.org/html/2609.20803v1) (and as noted on Wikipedia, the Clay institute still lists the problem as 'active' not solved https://www.claymath.org/millennium/navier-stokes-equation/)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Regularity of asymptotically axisymmetric solutions to the 3D Navier-Stokes equations with analytic forcing — mentioned by HarHarVeryFunny

Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:02:39 GMT

Not really - if you read beyond the headlines of "mathematicians don't like AI", and your own imagined (incorrect) reasons they may have for that "AI is stupid", then the truth seems a bit more interesting. If you want to abide by your own words and judge the situation on it's merit, then you need to look at the specifics, meaning the OpenAI proof itself (166 pages), and the analysis of it that is only just beginning. Assuming that the proof is wonderful and provides much insight into Navier-Stokes is just as dumb a take as assuming that it doesn't. Judge it on its merit. The Scientific…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.