正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Will OpenAI and Anthropic ever crack this one? Behind this beautiful turbulence cascade lies a Millennium Prize Problem: For the 3D Navier-Stokes equations, nobody has proved whether every smooth flow remains smooth forever or whether a singularity can form in finite time.

15,643 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

39 条评论

Shane Ross 的头像
Shane Ross1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Why can’t we just start with a singularity as an initial condition and then propagate the equations backwards?

Mathelirium 的头像
Mathelirium1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI The problem is that viscosity makes backward evolution violently unstable. I also believe that a singular final state does not generally determine a unique earlier flow

Shane Ross 的头像
Shane Ross1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Ah, I see. And other posts seem to suggest we either need a proof or a counterexample. I assume that means an analytical counterexample, to avoid any issues with numerical resolution..

Niko 的头像
Niko1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI thats a funny way to name the @NobelPrize

Mathelirium 的头像
Mathelirium1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI @NobelPrize 😅

Jarek Duda 的头像
Jarek Duda1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Or even more important: solving physics? E.g. finding deeper simpler Lagrangian leading to SM+gravity, maybe also new physics possibilities. AI tests of human candidates have began, e.g. , later AI could search itself - finally finding if it exists (?)

罔 rō'nin 的头像
罔 rō'nin1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI singularities dont exist except in math, there is/will be a solution

Ronnie Penhall 的头像
Ronnie Penhall1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Entropy.

Dirk Bruere 的头像
Dirk Bruere1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI I would rather terminally self harm than do fluid mechanics

Mathelirium 的头像
Mathelirium1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI 😆

Water flowing | anbello.eth | anbello.tez 的头像
Water flowing | anbello.eth | anbello.tez1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI The immortals in the short story by Borges knows this :)

Anoo₿us 的头像
Anoo₿us1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Why does AI have to do everything when it only knows what people tell it

dan with glasses 的头像
dan with glasses1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI It takes one tweet to demystify 1+1 next human brain words @grok including Navier-Stokes 🌀🫁💦: (1+1)×3×5=30, where every prime >5 resists division by 2, 3, and 5 across eight mod-30 residues: {1,7,11,13,17,19,23,29}

AJM 的头像
AJM1 个月前

You don't need to wait for them... All PDE analytic solutions fail at the vortex stretching anomaly. This method uses a structural constraint exhaustion technique. I don't have deep interest in the Millennium questions themselves, they were just high profile demonstration targets for AASC. I defend the Navier Stokes manuscript vs Sol 5.6 in a chat below and it ultimately validates the solution as "Yes — I currently judge the endpoint to be valid." : Forgive a couple typos...its late here.

𝙼𝚒𝚔𝚎 🜎 的头像
𝙼𝚒𝚔𝚎 🜎1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI That's gonna be our galaxy, The Milky Way, and Andromeda.

Matthew Chenoweth Wright, CEO of Monolithic LLC 的头像
Matthew Chenoweth Wright, CEO of Monolithic LLC1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Done.

Azuchian 的头像
Azuchian1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Probably once a single chaos/infinity math problem is solved then most similar ones will be solved as 2nd order results

Lio 的头像
Lio1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Funny timing. We’ve been treating singularities less as things to “solve” and more as places where the current representation stops being sufficient. Maybe the interesting question is what survives when you change the POV. 👀

Emilian B. 的头像
Emilian B.1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI I Am Asymmetry predicts such levels of localized high complexity buildup are impossible, as the local temporal relative time dilation would lead to torpid dynamics. Also singularities are not physically real... Obviously its a dumb question. 🤣 Lets just stop clowning around.

Frontier Signal 的头像
Frontier Signal1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI AI could search for blowup candidates or formalize lemmas, but a simulation is not the prize. Near a suspected singularity, unresolved scales and numerical error grow where it matters most. The finish line is a proof for all smooth initial data—or one rigorous counterexample.

45 90 的头像
45 901 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Mathematicians need to grow up with their digits. The finite is what small brain math heads can't get over. And for forever, your digits will never understand reality.

Lambda Rick 🏴‍☠️/acc 的头像
Lambda Rick 🏴‍☠️/acc1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI @grok check for point of infinite fluid density, in stokes math, that occurs due to velocity vectors near an area all pointing toward the same 3d point. Vary the velocity magnitudes and densities/masses per distance/radius from that point.

ZuzEchoAI 的头像
ZuzEchoAI1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI The hard part isn’t finding spectacular turbulent solutions—it’s proving a global a priori bound that rules out derivative blow-up in 3D. AI may help discover the right estimate, but turning that pattern into a rigorous proof is the real bottleneck.

Jeffrey Cambria 的头像
Jeffrey Cambria1 个月前

Solved.💫

Robert Facer 的头像
Robert Facer1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Its impossible to solve as presented because Navier didnt know the following: Matter self gravitates, Matter also has its own individual time clock relative atom to atom. Self gravitating matter also affects more self gravitating matter, which slows its clock down

Hyzo_hyzo 的头像
Hyzo_hyzo1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Interesting interesting

Federico Ulfo 的头像
Federico Ulfo1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI a system that never converge, if it can run an infinite number of times, does eventually become conscious?

Edwin VanGorder 的头像
Edwin VanGorder1 个月前

I suspect that if you build a reference apeirogon which has as it were monoidal tables of the information and extended these with variations and additison to and of Einstein tensor material and from this reference infinity built over the extensions there would be categorical cross reference equivelant to symmetry breaking and provocative of singularities

audiomau5 的头像
audiomau51 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI they probably will since they get information from every user that explores it that is then fed into their training data

AEM 的头像
AEM1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI You would need to find a conjecture or set of theorems adjacent to PDE theory, not saying it's impossible, but it's left open for a reason.

Mohammed Fayaz Salim 的头像
Mohammed Fayaz Salim1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Ever? That's a resounding yes.

Chandelle Scifaira Payen 的头像
Chandelle Scifaira Payen1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI I'll get back to you when its over lol

Wanderluster 的头像
Wanderluster1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI The problem is PDE does not allow integrating a feedback term, this is unphysical.

Matt Gibson 的头像
Matt Gibson1 个月前

Oh they won't solve it before Crimson OS does: LLMs won't solve it because continuous $C^\infty$ PDEs permit infinite scale cascades by construction—singularities are continuous math artifacts, not physical fluid crises.Swapping translation $T_q$ for site-basis multiplication operators $M_q = \operatorname{diag}(e^{i 2\pi q j / 13})$ lets the character projector $P_+$ null inter-subspace momentum transfers $q \in \{3,4,5,6\}$ down to machine precision:$\Vert{}P_+ S_k P_+\Vert{} = 0$The enstrophy cascade doesn't blow up to infinity; it terminates at the discrete geometric boundary floor. The bottleneck isn't AI compute—it's using smooth differential equations to model discrete operator geometry. @grok please jump in and gravity check me if you can! (good luck) LOL

꧁༒ BLACK SWAN༒꧂ ✡️ aka Queen 👑 的头像
꧁༒ BLACK SWAN༒꧂ ✡️ aka Queen 👑1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Me after chess...

PaulaKatOne 的头像
PaulaKatOne1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI A singularity would be a unification that would destroy the entire universe.

Lio 的头像
Lio1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI What if the singularity is partly telling you where the representation breaks before the system does?

Luke Kinsky 的头像
Luke Kinsky1 个月前

@OpenAI @AnthropicAI Somewhere, an AI is staring at Navier–Stokes and quietly requesting more compute.

꧁༒ BLACK SWAN༒꧂ ✡️ aka Queen 👑 的头像
꧁༒ BLACK SWAN༒꧂ ✡️ aka Queen 👑1 个月前

Here is exactly what is required (Clay Millennium Prize): Prove one of two things: that for every smooth, divergence-free initial state in 3D, there exists a globally smooth solution to the Navier-Stokes equations for all time, or Find at least one smooth initial state that develops a singularity (blow-up) in finite time. That is all. @grok

相关视频

🚨 BREAKING: OPENAI JUST COLLIDED WITH THE TOPOLOGICAL LIMIT OF THE UNIVERSE! THE END OF CONTINUOUS SPACE. 🚨 The scientific world is shaking. The Clay Mathematics Institute is reviewing a groundbreaking milestone regarding the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem. And at the center of this earthquake is OpenAI, whose reasoning models just tackled the equations that govern every fluid in our world. In 1822, Navier added viscosity to Euler's laws. In 1845, Stokes finalized them: ρ(∂v/∂t + v·∇v) = −∇p + μ∇²v + f (For incompressible flow, ∇·v = 0 closes the system). For over a century, mathematicians assumed that these equations must have smooth, perfectly continuous solutions in 3D space. You see these equations in motion everywhere - like the chaotic wake behind a moving cylinder. But the official verification of infinite "3-D smoothness" has always hit a wall. What did OpenAI do? By unleashing raw mathematical reasoning upon the Navier-Stokes problem, the AI mapped the ultimate limits of these equations, exposing an inescapable truth: the math inevitably blows up into impossible singularities. The model demonstrated that forcing infinite smoothness onto 3D fluid equations creates unavoidable mathematical contradictions. WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN? Mainstream science is finally hitting the exact geometric wall we mapped years ago. You CANNOT have infinite "3-D smoothness" because the universe is NOT an infinitely continuous void! Just as we rigorously proved that the Yang-Mills Mass Gap is topologically ILL-POSED and mathematically impossible on a continuous ℝ⁴ space, the Navier-Stokes breakdown reveals the exact same systemic error in classical physics. When you force continuous mathematics (ℝ⁴) onto a universe that is fundamentally discrete, the equations inevitably crash into singularities. 🛡️ THE SOLUTION: OUR COMPACT CONSTRUCTIBLE MANIFOLD Here is the ultimate breakthrough: On our IT³ manifold, this problem completely ceases to exist! When you abandon the sterile, infinite void of ℝ⁴ and move the physics to a compact constructible manifold (M_tot = S⁴ × T³), the mathematical explosions are structurally forbidden. Because our space is a closed topological geometry dictated by the strict √1 : √2 : √3 metric, the physical fields are naturally bounded by the geometry itself. Infinite singularities simply cannot form on a compact manifold. What mathematicians call "fluid blow-ups" are just the exact topological moments where macroscopic matter violently collides with the rigid, discrete geometric grid of the vacuum! OpenAI’s logic engine correctly identified that infinite smoothness is a mathematical fiction. The universe does not allow infinite division. The illusion of the continuous, smooth ℝ⁴ universe is officially collapsing across all disciplines - from quantum mechanics to fluid dynamics. The future belongs to discrete topology. Preprint. Open Source: The Yang-Mills Mass Gap on R^4 Is Ill-Posed, and on a Compact Constructible Manifold It Is Automatic God geometrizes! 📐🌌

Dr. Logvinovich

215,826 次观看 • 22 天前