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.
I'm pretty sure Fefferman's formulation of the problem got a lot of vetting before the Clay Institute accepted it. As such, it probably does reflect the math community's understanding of the problem. The "problem" such as it is, is that it might be the least interesting case especially given the solution that was obtained.
ChickeNES · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
hatthew · · focus · HN ↗
dragonwriter · · focus · HN ↗
scheme271 · · focus · HN ↗