you're as sure of what you say as wrong about it.

Toutouxc · 2026-09-09T13:08:36 1788959316

Note that your reply has exactly 0 value for anyone who doesn’t already know where and how the parent poster is wrong.

robotpepi · 2026-09-09T18:25:46 1788978346

fair enough

jgalt212 · 2026-09-09T13:01:49 1788958909

which 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.

CyberDildonics · 2026-09-09T13:10:41 1788959441

If that were true you could explain it. There are lots of solvers for navier stokes simulations and they do a good job.

robotpepi · 2026-09-09T18:29:47 1788978587

I 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.

hunterpayne · 2026-09-09T15:53:43 1788969223

True, this is just a much bigger one with a vastly larger amounts of hardware.

hyperbovine · 2026-09-09T13:10:40 1788959440

The 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 · 2026-09-09T18:26:31 1788978391

I was referring to the "it's just mathematicians checking boxes" claim