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
It is interesting that there's a gap between the "prove N–S existence" conditions, which assume no forcing term, and the "counterexample" conditions, which allow a nonzero forcing term. In theory both (A) and (C) could be true.
ChickeNES · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
aesthesia · · focus · HN ↗