So what they are saying is that humans, in this case Charles Fefferman (a math prodigy, going by his history), failed to specify the problem correctly?
No, that‘s not the issue. If you look at <a href="https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/navierstokes.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/navierst..., second page, you will see an option C is one of the four that is asked to be solved. And that option is the one that allows for an external force, which is what OpenAI solved. There is no question that OpenAI solved what the Clay institute is looking for. But that specific option C isn’t what the larger math community cares about, it’s a pretty niche case
I think GP's point is that if the larger math community doesn't care about option C, Fefferman shouldn't have given that option in the first place.
But Clay chose Fefferman to represent "the larger math community"? I'm calling out Clay/Fefferman here, not the community. Though the community also had over 25 years to contest the problem statement, and had no problem with it until now.
> But Clay chose Fefferman to represent "the larger math community"?
Surprisingly enough, being chosen by another actor as proxy for some group doesn’t actually resolve the problem that an individual may not always be an accurate proxy for the concerns of the group (and especially for the same descriptive aggregate group a generation after the proxy acts on their behalf.)
ChickeNES · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
hatthew · · focus · HN ↗
dragonwriter · · focus · HN ↗
ChickeNES · · focus · HN ↗
dragonwriter · · focus · HN ↗
Surprisingly enough, being chosen by another actor as proxy for some group doesn’t actually resolve the problem that an individual may not always be an accurate proxy for the concerns of the group (and especially for the same descriptive aggregate group a generation after the proxy acts on their behalf.)