Kazakh Professor Claims Solution of Another Millennium Prize Problem

Overcompensating by nospam007 · 2014-01-11 06:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I guess he's still angry about that Baron Cohen Movie.

Re:Overcompensating by davester666 · 2014-01-11 06:47 · Score: 5, Funny

great. another reason for "oh, you need to buy new textbooks for the class this semester".

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Overcompensating by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 07:02 · Score: 1

Overcompensating .... I guess he's still angry about that Baron Cohen Movie.
If solving one of the Millennium Prize problems is a form of "overcompensating" then I'm all for it.
Can we get somebody to overcompensate with fusion power too?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Overcompensating by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 12:03 · Score: 0

If solving one of the Millennium Prize problems is a form of "overcompensating" then I'm all for it.
Can we get somebody to overcompensate with fusion power too?
If all the money that is currently being wasted on the various military adventures
the US is involved with around the world was redirected to R&D devoted only to fusion
power, fusion power might happen some day soon.
Instead, we see billions wasted on things like aircraft carriers which are weapons of the
20th century. This is what you get when you get psychotic old men controlling the show.
Re:Overcompensating by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 13:36 · Score: 1

China has a plan to build it fleet to include at least 4 aircraft carriers. China's first carrier battle group recently did a photo op, sailing in formation. In effect they were announcing to the world, "We've arrived."
India just took possession of a third aircraft carrier. Japan has just built its largest "destroyer" since World War 2, one that can carry aircraft. I won't be surprised if it builds more, especially given China's aggressive behavior. Britain is building 2 new large carriers. The aircraft carrier hasn't gone out of style net, and won't for quite some time to come.
You should also be clear, the majority of Federal spending in the US is on social welfare programs, not on defense.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Overcompensating by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 15:12 · Score: 1

Defense / Social welfare the money is going to the same guys in the end. The same guys that are on the boards of Boeing and Raytheon are the same guys who are running the citys social welfare programs to ensure everyone can afford to live in a subsidized apartment complex that they happen to have stake in. I don't see the USA building any more carriers largely because the same people that run the defense and social welfare agencies also have houses and bank accounts in China, India, Sweeden, etc.. It is one world order, and the powers that be do not want a war, because that is bad for business. Relatively small wars like Afganistan and Iraq are good because there is enormous profit to be made off of war racketeering. However fighting a serious enemy would be a big no no.
Re:Overcompensating by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 15:37 · Score: 1

The US as several more carriers planned, and that hasn't stopped yet.
I think your view of common defense firm board membership along with slum-lord apartment complex ownership among a common multi-national global super-elite that has decreed no more big wars isn't one that is well rooted in reality.
We are far from a "one-world order."

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Overcompensating by cusco · 2014-01-11 15:45 · Score: 1

Social Security and Medicare are not budget items, they're trust items. People have paid into them, and are allowed to take their portions back out. The Pentagram budget is the single largest discretionary budget item by far. Add in the alphabet soup of intel agencies and the utterly unconstitutional Black Budget and it's an even larger percentage. It's depressing that it is actually illegal for taxpayers to know how much of their money the military is wasting.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Overcompensating by cusco · 2014-01-11 15:51 · Score: 2

Prior to WWII the Soviets were second only the the Germans in rocket technology, while Goddard was stuck out in the desert begging rich New Yorkers for drips and drabs of funding.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Overcompensating by cusco · 2014-01-11 15:52 · Score: 1

Crap. How the heck did this post get up here? Meant to reply to someone lower in the thread.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Overcompensating by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 16:29 · Score: 1

I don't mind, it is an interesting post. ;)

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Overcompensating by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 16:33 · Score: 1

How is Social Security financed?

About 96 percent of workers must pay a certain amount of their paycheck, generally 6.2 percent, into the system, an amount that is matched by their employers. (Some state and local workers don’t participate in Social Security.)
This results in a 12.4 percent tax on income, as most economists would agree that the full amount is taken from the worker’s wage compensation.
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, which means that payments collected today are immediately used to pay benefits. Until recently, more payments were collected than were needed for benefits. So, Social Security loaned the money to the U.S. government, which used it for other things. In exchange, Social Security receives interest-bearing Treasury securities. The value of those bonds is now nearly $2.8 trillion.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Overcompensating by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 19:11 · Score: 0

Epic fail on the part of the US for not recognizing, as usual, the value of his work; a financial backed program would have had much better and more timely results. He had similar problems with the Bazooka in 1918.
Re:Overcompensating by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:40 · Score: 0

And then the teacher won't cover that part because they are too 'old dog' to learn a new trick. Even thought they are the ones who specified that edition.
This is not applicable to all teachers, some are actually good.
Re: Overcompensating by Danyel · 2014-01-13 09:55 · Score: 1

search on ted foe the 19 year old graduating from high school who is switching his focus from the last time he gave a ted talk about fusion at 14 to his new interest and business venture fission.

It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:08 · Score: 0, Troll

...that as the world-leading Soviet scientific education system is replaced with a the religion of the Invisible Hand, aka the market model, these nations will end up producing less and less.

Re:It kind of makes me sad... by bunratty · 2014-01-11 06:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think you're confusing science with technology and engineering.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:09 · Score: 1

What you describe is technology that becomes possible *after* most of the research has been done.
Scientific discovery is and always has been made by state-sponsored research institutions, be that in a free market society or the former USSR. There are only very few exceptions.
The USSR had outstanding scientists, but their production facilities weren't always up to the task.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-01-11 07:13 · Score: 2

Kind of butt-ironic then they often aped capitalist rewards by giving housing upgrades and other goodies to scientists who made a mark on the world stage, much like Olympic athletes.
They are dancing people, singing for their supper for dictators who have artificially restricted the market for maximum control...of political opponents.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes because Soviet Russia has contributed so much to hard science: Nuclear technology... stolen from the US, rocket technology... stolen from Germany, microchip design... stolen from Intel, Space Shuttle design... stolen from NASA. Oh wait, they stole nearly all of their technology from the west. The free market has been proven time and again as the best incubator for scientific discovery and innovation. It's too bad you let your liberal professors shove your head so far up your posterior. You might want to do some research and educate yourself on the facts of who has done what for scientific discovery.
What a bunch of bullshit. And the worst is /. modding your post insightful.
Do I need to remind you that most of scientific advances in post WW2 in the US were due to german scientists and german technology pilfered by the Americans ? Of course the Soviets pilfered Germany also.
The Soviet school of mathematics pre and post WW2 was much more productive than the american one. Soviet physics and engineering were also nothing to sneer at. Americans look at Soviet science and technology the same way they looked at the Japanese pre WW2. Monkeys incapable of doing anything. Hoorah for american exceptionalism.
Fuck you and your us navel gazing ideology.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:45 · Score: 0

I think you're confusing science with technology and engineering.
Also, I think the post is confusing stolen with copy -- ideas like to be duplicated, not erased.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:58 · Score: 1, Informative

"To each according to his contribution" is a core tenet of Socialism, not "aping Capitalism." Paying people more for greater labors is not the defining aspect of Capitalism --- rather, it's whether people are allowed to use their money to control the labor of others and accumulate an ever-growing cut for themselves without working (a Capitalist class who gets richer as a reward for being rich, while controlling the work/lives of the majority). None of the former Soviet-bloc countries considered themselves to be at the "full-blown Communism" stage, where abundant goods were distributed to all regardless of work input. "Socialism," as defined in the Marxist framework with an end goal of Communism, is in no way contradictory with paying hard workers more (but for their own use/enjoyment, not for authority over other people Capitalism-style).
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:07 · Score: 0

Be careful with your "always" there is a great history of research being made possible by patrons of some sort, but the idea of the state sponsoring this research is somewhat new in historical terms, simply because the state's purse didn't exist to sponsor it.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:24 · Score: 0

Do I need to remind you that most of scientific advances in post WW2 in the US were due to german scientists and german technology pilfered by the Americans ? Of course the Soviets pilfered Germany also. The Soviet school of mathematics pre and post WW2 was much more productive than the american one. Soviet physics and engineering were also nothing to sneer at. Americans look at Soviet science and technology the same way they looked at the Japanese pre WW2. Monkeys incapable of doing anything. Hoorah for american exceptionalism.
Reminds me of the decades old American quote: "Our (US) German scientists are better than your (USSR) German scientists." Those scientists were somewhat stunned when they were interrogated by the US wanting to know how they came up with their ideas for rocket technology.
Their ideas came from the American, Robert Goddard, and his US patents; rocket clubs created by German youths, one of them Wehner von Braun, were started for that very reason.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 10:11 · Score: 1

"To each according to his contribution" is a core tenet of Socialism.
I call BS on this. If it were true socialist countries wouldn't provide welfare to people who sit on their asses and contribute nothing.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by phantomfive · 2014-01-11 10:42 · Score: 1

"To each according to his contribution" is a core tenet of Socialism. I call BS on this. If it were true socialist countries wouldn't provide welfare to people who sit on their asses and contribute nothing.
Yeah, it's almost as if all those countries that are labeled by Fox News as "Socialist" aren't actually socialist.
Nah, couldn't be. Fox News hosts are infallible.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Rei · 2014-01-11 15:36 · Score: 2

Except that even that isn't largely true. Yes, it's true that the US heavily relied on German rocket scientists to build up its space program. What's *not* true is the concept that the Soviets did the same. The US actively sought out and brought to the US almost all high-level German rocket scientists after the war during Operation Paperclip, as well as over 100 V2s. The Soviets got almost nobody of significance (Helmut Gröttrup being the only noteworthy exception), and mainly only got line technicians and captured papers/drawings. What's more, for the most part, they didn't actively involve them in their programs - they interrogated them heavily, and once they were satisfied that they knew everything that they knew, they sent them back. Most were dismissed within a year, and by 1951, there were no longer any Germans at all within Soviet rocketry program (although the remaining ones were held for a few years after that to avoid intelligence transfer).
The real quote should be, "Our German rocket scientists are better than your Soviet scientists whose non-domestic contribution is largely limited to data from old documents and lower-level Germans involved in rocketry."

--
"'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Aighearach · 2014-01-12 08:08 · Score: 1

Nonsense, Capitalism is the premise that business people will all cheat to make a buck, that this is harmful to investment, and that if a neutral third party (the Government) regulates in certain ways to create a level playing field, then Capital is free to flow, and the economy is based around where people want Capital to flow. Whereas prior, in an unregulated economy, established interests will almost always conspire against newcomers, and new capital won't flow at all into an industry unless somebody has some sort of new political control over part of the process.
Marx took the basic premise straight from Adam Smith, that if two business people drink in the same pub, by the end of the evening you have collusion; and completely ignored Smith's remedy. Instead, he made up a fresh remedy, involving a wide variety of radical changes to every part of people's lives. Once you understand the distribution of traits, you can understand it is mathematically, physically, statistically impossible for a society to agree to all these changes; it can only be by force, just because people will want different things. In that sort of environment, there will not be an abundance of goods to distribute. Morale will be low, it has to be low, because genes are distributed in a certain broad natural way. So it can very much be end-stage, "full-blown Communism" and still have a lot of suffering. That is why the places where "Communism" works are the places where it is actually a mixed economy, like China, Vietnam, Cuba. China tried real Communism and it sucked.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Aighearach · 2014-01-12 08:12 · Score: 1

Right. They don't. Generally Democracies are where that happens. In Socialist countries people who sit on their asses and contribute nothing go to the gulag as hooligans. From Each According to His Ability! If you truly had no ability, you would also have no value. But everybody has some ability. If you do nothing, you're a hooligan, you're anti-social.
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 19:30 · Score: 0

Dr. Robert H. Goddard

Two of Goddard's 214 patented [i.e. publicly available] inventions — a multi-stage rocket (1914), and a liquid-fuel rocket (1914) — were important milestones toward spaceflight. His 1919 monograph A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes is considered one of the classic texts of 20th-century rocket science. Goddard successfully applied three-axis control, gyroscopes and steerable thrust to rockets, to effectively control their flight.

... [with little support] credited with creating and building the world's first liquid-fueled rocket, which he successfully launched on March 16, 1926. Goddard and his team launched 34 rockets between 1926 and 1941, achieving altitudes as high as 2.6 km (1.6 mi) and speeds as high as 885 km/h (550 mph).
just sayin'
Re:It kind of makes me sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 01:07 · Score: 0

Interesting how socialism constantly fails.
It...doesn't.

Cue intellectually dishonest comment that it doesn't succeed because the "wrong people" have tried it and "capitalists will always try to kill it."
You hear the former about communism and total free-market hypercapitalism. I've never heard the latter.

If it were fittest, it would survive.
Best and fittest are not necessarily the same thing. By this logic Nazi Germany was better than the Germany that existed before it. And the USSR was better than everything before it. I can hear your counter-argument: "those societies don't exist anymore". But unless you think this moment is the end of history, I assure you, things will change in the future again.
Economic systems don't run around making babies based on how morally virtuous they are, thus an evolutionary metaphor only stretches so far with this.

Capitalism is genetically superior,
Meaningless (is that a reference to grand theft auto IV?).

which is why everything you benefit from is a product of capitalism.
Yeah, like sunlight and roads and policemen!

Hopefully correct but will wait for verification by nayrbn · 2014-01-11 06:12 · Score: 0

These claims often occur, even publicly (remember, what was it, the IBM researcher who claimed to have solved the N=?NP problem?) but it is rare for them to be true. But, it would be fabulous for another one of these problems to have been solved.

re Need new editions of Fluid Mechanics textbooks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh no. Textbook publishers HATE having to do that....

Re:"another Millennium Prize Problems." by cryptizard · 2014-01-11 06:20 · Score: 4, Funny

Or it's just a typo.

'more that', instead of 'more that'

So much irony it is delicious...

Re:"another Millennium Prize Problems." by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:22 · Score: 0

dat grammer

Why not in English? by Frans+Faase · 2014-01-11 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

If it is such an important article, why did he not find someone to translate it to English? He did get some related papers published in English. It seems that those are about approximations. Interesting non the less.

Re:Why not in English? by qaz123 · 2014-01-11 06:35 · Score: 2

Somebody will translate it
Re:Why not in English? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-01-11 06:59 · Score: 1

I hope it goes better than the anthem this time.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:23 · Score: 0

As qas123 notes in another reply, if this is worthy, then "Somebody will translate it".
If you had a million dollars coming to you, would you waste time translating something before letting the world know of the progress made?
Not only may his paper help people who know his native language, but may help ensure that he becomes the first. Elisha Gray once complained about being an hour or two behind Alexander Graham Bell in filing an appropriate patent for the telephone. If a person has something solid and tangible, then it makes sense to make an early announcement, and then take care of details later.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:39 · Score: 0

If it is such an important article, why did he not find someone to translate it to English?
What is wrong with Russian? Is English somehow more important than Russian?
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:43 · Score: 0

You are right. The English speaking part of the world could need the education this paper would provide so they have a chance to win the remaining prizes.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:45 · Score: 1

If it is such an important article, why did he not find someone to translate it to English?
What is wrong with Russian? Is English somehow more important than Russian?
Nothing is wrong with Russian. But if you want a wider international audience to read your article you're going to have to have an english and in the future chinese versions available.
Re:Why not in English? by ericloewe · 2014-01-11 07:49 · Score: 1

The mere fact that you wrote this post in English answers that question.
Re:Why not in English? by ericloewe · 2014-01-11 07:50 · Score: 1

I think it's common for such papers that aren't written directly in English to only be translated after their original version has been released
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:57 · Score: 0

Kirillitsa ne podderzhivayetsya
Re:Why not in English? by jd · 2014-01-11 08:02 · Score: 0

Russian was the International standard for publication of scientific discoveries in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Russian was fluently spoken as a second language in academia across Europe and America at that time. Einstein's early publications would have had Russian translations or might even have been written in Russian first. It was the lingua franca of science at that time. That matters, in that all the necessary terminology and shorthand developed in science in the last few hundred years will already exist in the language. It is fit for purpose.
So, no, there is nothing wrong with a paper in Russian. There won't be many American professors left who could read it, and for political reasons they would likely deny any such ability. Europeans are less extreme and more multicultural, but Russian has never been a particularly hot second language. Ok, more so than Old Icelandic, Akkadian or Finnish, but Babylon hasn't done much new maths in 5,000 years and Scandanavia only produces hot computer geeks, hot models and hot saunas.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:03 · Score: 1

Math papers look prettier when you combine so many alphabets, it feels more like art (incomprehensible art). You get cyrillic (including cursive), greek leters in formulae, and some latin here and there. That's original, I like it.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Einstein's early publications would have had Russian translations or might even have been written in Russian first. It was the lingua franca of science at that time.
I think you're confusing "Russian" with "German," which was a major scientific language of the time (and, indeed, used in Einstein's early papers). Russian became a major scientific language during the mid 20th century, when scientific research was carried out in parallel on both sides of the "iron curtain" (frequently resulting in near-simultaneous discoveries and advancements, independently worked out by research groups on both sides).
Re:Why not in English? by HiThere · 2014-01-11 09:56 · Score: 1

If that were true, then non-Euclidean geometries would have had a much earlier start. It wasn't. Nobody in the West understood Russian, so Lobachevsky's work was ignored.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Why not in English? by HiThere · 2014-01-11 10:01 · Score: 1

Yes. It should be in English, because that's the language I speak.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Why not in English? by tgv · 2014-01-11 10:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, whatever. I'm English nor American, and I can reply in several languages you wouldn't understand, but I can accept there is a (global) lingua franca. It has been Greek, Latin, German, and French. It might even have been Aramic at some point and place. Now it's English.
Re:Why not in English? by martin-boundary · 2014-01-11 12:31 · Score: 1

Uh, if you're doing it for the million dollars, then your priorities are fucked up. Luckily those who work seriously on the problem often have the right priorities, and those that have the wrong priorities are often delusional wankers. So it's an easy classification problem.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 13:08 · Score: 0

Nye ponemayu paruski. Sto ete ? Kak rabotet ?
Re:Why not in English? by ClickOnThis · 2014-01-11 14:15 · Score: 1

I hope it goes better than the anthem this time.
As with the anthem, I'd only be concerned about translations of this paper that are unofficial.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Why not in English? by turtle+graphics · 2014-01-11 17:54 · Score: 2

If he's really solved the problem, he's probably in a hurry to get it written up as he may believe that others are close, using similar methods. In that case, he'd write it up in his native Russian and make it public. That way, he's got priority, and the translation can come anytime. But there will certainly be a translation, because many English speaking mathematicians will want to give his work close scrutiny.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 21:18 · Score: 1

Indeed it is (very) common. It will be translated, in due course, for a broader audience. For a paper like this it's extremely important that a translation is correct, and that takes time. The ones demanding an English version up front need to, frankly, grow up a bit.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 21:23 · Score: 0

Riemann contributed at least as much and wrote in German.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 03:47 · Score: 0

Russian was the International standard for publication of scientific discoveries in the late 1800s, early 1900s.

Bullfuckingshit.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 03:49 · Score: 0

Rabotet harasho, spasibo.
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 03:57 · Score: 0

I'm English nor American,
Clearly.

Now it's English.
To a degree. Scientific work is hardly limited to English though. The French don't even use the same names for trig functions.
Re:Why not in English? by Aighearach · 2014-01-12 08:18 · Score: 1

Why should he want a wider audience? Why should he care? If English-speaking people don't want to learn Russian, they'll just wait for somebody to translate it. Why should waiting for that be bad? He's in Russia, it is entirely natural to release it only in Russian.
If I made some neat discovery I would release it only in English. If somebody told me, "oh, the world wants this type of paper in Italian now," I would tell them to translate it.
And if I want something in C that is in Perl, I'll port it myself if I have to. No sense complaining about what languages people use.
Re:Why not in English? by MooshaRoosha · 2014-01-12 17:06 · Score: 1

I have started to translate the paper so that English speakers can explore it. I've only had time for the abstract, introduction, and main result statement, but that already gives an important part of the picture. Any further contributions are welcome. https://github.com/myw/navier_stokes_translate
Re:Why not in English? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-14 23:49 · Score: 0

The original paper - in Russian - is being translated. I saw what is already available: abstract, intro and conclusion. He uses Lebesgue vector norms, which is bloody elegant. Let's wait for the full article to be available.
Re:Why not in English? by Your.Master · 2014-01-15 01:14 · Score: 1

Why can't somebody have multiple motivations?
If I solved the Navier-Stokes problem, I'd be stoked about lots of things, and among them would be a million dollars.
If you can't enjoy two things, your priorities aren't fucked up because they *don't exist at all*. Since priorities are comparisons between multiple things you want.
My desire for 1 million dollars would be greater than my desire to delay publication so that no Russian speakers learn of this before Frans Faase does.
I'm really wondering about your priorities if you think delaying publishing this until it is in English has value. Depending on this guy's flluency, this might lead to it getting published in English *faster* than if he kept it secret until he could publish in English. Plus he can understand the initial responses this way.

Re:re Need new editions of Fluid Mechanics textboo by weakref · 2014-01-11 06:24 · Score: 2

Aren't you missing a "sarcasm" tag?

My math ends here! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:26 · Score: 0

GRS= -\frac{\frac{\delta u}{\delta x1}}{\frac{\delta u}{\delta x2}}

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by techprophet · 2014-01-11 06:30 · Score: 3, Informative

It's P=NP, you insensitive clod!

Very new by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:32 · Score: 0

This must be very new or very crackpot. There are no posts on mathoverflow about it.

Re:Very new by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:55 · Score: 0

This must be very new or very crackpot. There are no posts on mathoverflow about it.
I think it's safe to say "it is very very crackpot".

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by Rockoon · 2014-01-11 06:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Clearly both P and N are 1.0

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by bunratty · 2014-01-11 06:42 · Score: 1

No, it's P!=NP.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by Rockoon · 2014-01-11 06:43 · Score: 1

(I refuse to believe that we've wasted our time on the alternate solution, which is nothing)

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:43 · Score: 1

or P=0

Conspiracy by Oysterville · 2014-01-11 06:44 · Score: 1

Great, like the college text books need another reason to come out with a re-write for next year.

Re:Conspiracy by katterjohn · 2014-01-11 06:48 · Score: 2

At least they'd have a good reason this time.
Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:22 · Score: 1

Hell with the college text books. It's all the CFD (computational fluid dynamics) code that is going to have to be rewritten. Currently, (as I understand it), all this code approximates or partially solves Navier-Stokes for different special cases. Good work if you are the right kind of engineering analyst-programmer.
Re:Conspiracy by wagnerrp · 2014-01-11 09:06 · Score: 1

All this code approximates, or partially solves, Navier-Stokes for different special cases, because we don't have the computational power to do otherwise.
Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 09:59 · Score: 0

A solution to the millenium prize probably wouldn't change much here. The prize is only to prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions, not to find them explicitly. While the techniques discovered may give insight into building new numerical solvers, it's not possible that you'll get a closed form, analytic solution to the Navier-Stokes equations that eliminates the need for numerical solvers.
Re:Conspiracy by semi-extrinsic · 2014-01-11 10:22 · Score: 3, Informative

You're very wrong on all points I'm afraid. This will have zero impact on any CFD codes. And where did you get the (slightly ridiculous) idea that CFD programs only solve for special cases? It's true that most restrict themselves in some way, e.g. "subsonic and non-turbulent", but otherwise they are completely general. Source: my PhD work consists of writing a CFD code for Navier-Stokes. (The summary talking about rewriting textbooks is also way off on their understanding. This will likely be incomprehensible without a PhD in the right area of mathematics.)

--
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 11:02 · Score: 0

It is even possible to get an analytic solution to something, and stick with numeric approximations if they are fast enough and you are going to be limited by machine precision anyway.
Re:Conspiracy by MickLinux · 2014-01-11 12:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Okay, define three points, and a fourth point not coplanar with the first three. Now, sum up the area of the triangles defined by the fourth point, and subtract the area of the triangle of the first three. You thus define a field that is zero on the triangle of the first three, but nonzero everywhere else. Now, if you substitute a function for the perpendicular position of point four, you can get a field that is zero on a predefined curved plane, bounded by the three-point triangle.
Now, divide any arbitrary surface into such triangles, and multiply the fields together, and you will have a field that is zero on the surface of your object, nonzero everywhere else.
Do this with Parker-sochacki equations, and the solution is computationally simple.
Now, based on this field define a coordinate system whose air velocity is a function of the field value, and zero where the field is zero.
Now, again using Parker-Sochacki, plug that into the Navier Stokes equations, under the effect of a body force that is a miniscule fraction of the difference in velocity from your desired free-stream velocity.
The result will be a mclauren (taylor) series that gives the velocity of the air at any point and time. Since the existance and uniqueness of the Parker Sochacki is already proven, then the existance/uniqueness of the Navier-Stokes solution is also provable.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 15:31 · Score: 0

A couple potential issues with this approach:
The general solution needs to also apply to solutions in the whole of R^3 space, or a space with periodic conditions, so you can't necessarily assume there are some zero flow boundaries you can attach such triangles to. You would still have to prove the series you get at the end converges for all possible solutions and points. And additionally, the statement in the prize was that to prove or disprove that there must be a smooth function as a solution, so dividing your domain boundary into sections seems like it is asking for trouble and you would have to prove that not only does the series converge, but converges to something infinitely differentiable.
Re:Conspiracy by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-01-11 16:35 · Score: 1

This is Slashdot on a Saturday night. There are going to be at least 15 people who are convinced they know more and better than you buddy...

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 03:59 · Score: 0

Currently, (as I understand it), all this code approximates or partially solves Navier-Stokes for different special cases.
And this changes absolutely nothing about that.
Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:30 · Score: 0

... define a coordinate system whose air velocity is a function of the field value, and zero where the field is zero
Sorry, I just couldn't swallow that. I feel like I'm grasping at husks here.

His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by Frans+Faase · 2014-01-11 06:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

In his bio it is claimed that he found explicit formulas for n-particle motion in the space (in the framework of Einstein’s relativity theory). If that would be true, I guess it would have be known in the rest of the world as well, if he had.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by impossiblefork · 2014-01-11 08:36 · Score: 2

While it's probably hard mathematics I do not think that finding a bunch of explicit solutions to such problems is likely to be all that novel.

While It might sound as if though it's a claim to have found an explicit formula for n-particle motion in every case, it's fairly clear that they're talking about particular cases. It also seems unlikely that he makes trivial errors given that he got a PhD from MSU.
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by jd · 2014-01-11 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, yes and no. There is no general solution to the n-body problem, where n is greater than 2. The nature of the system makes that inevitable. The system isn't differentiable and you can't actually perform infinitesimal steps.
What you can do is define bounds for certain special cases, where the solutions must exist within those bounds. The error on the bounds increases quite quickly, which is why space probes are forever making course corrections. Bounds do not exist in all cases, as three bodies is sufficient for the system to be chaotic (deterministic but not predictable), which means in those cases, you rely heavily on probability (meteorologists perform hundreds of thousands of simulations and see what general patterns have the highest probability of cropping up) and on very short timeframes (in snooker, you can make a reasonable guess as to what will happen one or two reflections ahead).
These are inescapable properties of multibody dynamics, because you can do bugger all with infinite multiway recursion. There is no way to simplify it... ...as it is.
What you CAN do is flatten the universe into a 2D holographic model. If there is no time, there is no place for recursion. That might yield something. Alternatively, with time dilation, you can make infinitesimal time arbitrarily large. Neither of these will yield an absolute answer, but could be expected to yield an answer that looked as though it was.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by semi-extrinsic · 2014-01-11 10:28 · Score: 1

Holographic: I do not think it means what you think it means.

--
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by phantomfive · 2014-01-11 10:45 · Score: 1

Wow, my Saturday math lesson. Thanks.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by jd · 2014-01-11 10:49 · Score: 1

I understand the Holographic Universe theory perfectly well. And nothing can excuse Princess Bride Memeology. Now gerroff my lawn!

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by jd · 2014-01-11 10:52 · Score: 1

Maths and philosophy are directly interchangeable. This is why camels are so confused.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 11:07 · Score: 1

There is no general solution to the n-body problem, where n is greater than 2. The nature of the system makes that inevitable. The system isn't differentiable and you can't actually perform infinitesimal steps.
That's bull. The system is perfectly differentiable (in fact, that's how you write the equations of motion) and you cannot perform infinitesimal steps for any system. Numerical solution use finite discretization, which is a decent approximation for well-behaved solutions and fails for chaotic ones (such as n-body general problems). The actual problem is that there's no general closed-form solution, and approximations break down due to chaotic behavior in the majority of cases. However, there exist particular stable states with closed-form solutions, it's just that they're, well, particular.
The rest of your post has too much random noise to be worth discussing, sorry.
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by jd · 2014-01-11 11:45 · Score: 1

You are confusing setting up a system of differential equations (which you can do) with the system being differentiable (which is quite another matter).
Your post largely restates what I stated, so as far as I am concerned, you are more concerned with being pompous than with comprehending what it is you are being pompous about. Wake me up when you grow enough of a pair to read as well as write.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 11:58 · Score: 0

What you CAN do is flatten the universe into a 2D holographic model
If you can get it into a 2D problem, it would no longer be chaotic as 2D continuous problems can't be chaotic due to the Poincaré–Bendixson theorem. The results of which then can't be relevant or particular useful to determining the orbit of the original system if it doesn't display chaos. Doesn't matter, as the 3 body problem for example in general is inherently a 6 dimension equation (if using second order equations with 3 coordinates for each body, minus three for the constraints of having a fixed center of mass).
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 12:07 · Score: 0

That post was about as educational as Saturday morning cartoons... remember, don't do drugs.
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by MickLinux · 2014-01-11 12:19 · Score: 2

I believe his claim. My father published the solution to the n-body problem: it involves applying the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration to celestial mechanics.
Google it. His tutorial is easy to understand and use for other applications.
http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/parkersochacki.htm
Arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1677
Why do I believe his claim? Because although Parker and Sochacki independently came up with their solutions, my father believes that others have as well: an italian guy seems to have done it in the 50s, and his paper describes another such historical event. In both cases, the solution was not published, but the results were, and show the hallmarks of the method.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by MickLinux · 2014-01-11 12:23 · Score: 2

Arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1677
The solution is published there, and easy to understand.
Considering that the Taylor series is an exact solution, and existance /uniqueness of the solution has been proven, one can.definitively say that the solution is numerically differentiable. That is not CFD/FEM. That is an exact solution.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 13:18 · Score: 0

you are more concerned with being pompous than with comprehending what it is you are being pompous about.
Maybe you should lead by example then, instead of just accusing people of lacking reading comprehension.
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 19:58 · Score: 0

Well, seeing as the Holographic Universe theory is untestable in its current mathematical formulation, I can't see how you are able to understand it perfectly well (other than some abstract idea of how one hypothetical universe might be constructed). And I don't see how quoting a critically acclaimed film (e.g. by the American Film Institute) is inexcusable.
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 00:05 · Score: 0

Fucking brilliant! Thank you! What a great paper! I agree that this is probably what Dirichlet took to his grave.

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by davester666 · 2014-01-11 06:49 · Score: 0

Clearly both P and N are not 0 or 1.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!

I want to be a fluid mechanic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 06:50 · Score: 1

I don't really know what's involved, but if there's a textbook that teaches you how to be a fluid mechanic, I am sure that's for me!

Re:I want to be a fluid mechanic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 05:21 · Score: 0

You want to repair toilets? I think you can learn that on the job.
Re:I want to be a fluid mechanic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 02:57 · Score: 0

Here you go

Eurasian National University by CurryCamel · 2014-01-11 06:55 · Score: 2

Eurasian National University?
I thought 1984 was fiction...

Not a crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Otelbaev has published in some very respected journals, and trained with the very top people. His work is worth serious scrutiny. Of course, it is easy, even for the most brilliant scholars, to make a mistake which makes it look as if a big problem has fallen. Skepticism, but no mockery, please.

Re:Not a crazy by torsmo · 2014-01-11 19:17 · Score: 1

Hear hear.

Grisha Perelman was also working on Navier-Stokes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:12 · Score: 0

Allegedly, anyway.

Re:"another Millennium Prize Problems." by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:40 · Score: 0

There's no millennium prize for grammar.

a triumph of.. by harvey+the+nerd · 2014-01-11 07:42 · Score: 1

...mathematics, but real fluids are compressible, viscous and varying properties. Let's see how far his approach extends and how closed the answers are. Fluid mechanics text book publishers will probably give him a few paragraph boxes or pages for history and theoretical stuff. Then back to the classic stuff.

You can solve minor physics problems starting in their relavistic form, but most engineers still use Newtonian physics.

Re:a triumph of.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:49 · Score: 1

...mathematics, but real fluids are compressible, viscous and varying properties.
Water, and many similar fluids, are effectively incompressible (except when considering the largest scales). As a specialist in fluid dynamics, I could care less what people do with compressible fluids. The field is more or less split 50/50.
Re:a triumph of.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:57 · Score: 0

You could, but do you?

Re:Is slashdot viable ? by eyenot · 2014-01-11 07:50 · Score: 1

It has been up and running for over 15 years. Is there some problem?

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

Russian Nobel laureates by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:56 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Nobel_laureates

Re:Is slashdot viable ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:04 · Score: 0

There are ads, for non-signed-in, non-adblocking users (which, presumably, contains large numbers of gullible and under-informed readers who are the ideal target market for advertising). Allowing active readers/posters, who are smart enough to block ads anyway, to operate ad-free provides Slashdot with a huge amount of free material to attract page hits by advertising viewers (thus money from the ads) --- with near zero cost or effort for in-house journalistic/editorial work. If you're not seeing ads, but you're making posts, then you are the product being sold to the ad-reading viewers who are being sold to the advertisers.

Why use the word "Claim" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

I take exception to the use of the word "Claim" here. I never see this used for American or Western professionals?

In fact here on Slashdot we have a story about "Cheshire Cat" observations by a group and "Claim" wasn't used there.

You (Slashdot) are being highlighted for your stereotypes and western aligned views again.

Re:Why use the word "Claim" by wagnerrp · 2014-01-11 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

It has nothing to do with nationality. It has to do with finding a solution to a prominent problem, widely used in industry, that has gone unsolved for well over a hundred years. If you do something evolutionary, or something no one else has done before, then there's no history on which to base doubt. If you do something where so many others have already tried and failed, then inductive logic dictates skepticism until you have independent verification otherwise.
Re:Why use the word "Claim" by glwtta · 2014-01-11 11:33 · Score: 1

Hard to say, I guess we'll find out what wording Slashdot chooses to use when a Westerner solves a Millennium Prize Problem?

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:Why use the word "Claim" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 07:20 · Score: 0

Uh, maybe you should get your eyes checked. The title of that article is "Physicists Claim First Observation of a Quantum Cheshire Cat." Maybe they changed it, but I highly doubt it.

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:19 · Score: 0

We don't have to know what N is. P = 0 and done.

Alex by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:52 · Score: 0

Try:
http://translit.ru

Eurasian? by unixisc · 2014-01-11 09:07 · Score: 1

Director of the Eurasian Mathematical Institute of the Eurasian National University

Kazakhstan and all the 'stans' are in Asia. Why do they have to pretend to be associated w/ Europe by using the term 'Eurasian'? The only 2 Eurasian countries that exist are the Russian Federation and Turkey. Russia since west of the Urals is Europe and east of it is Asia. Turkey since Anatolia is in Asia while the East Thrace part of the country is in Europe.

But none of the other countries are 'Eurasian'. Georgia and Armenia might be considered European, since they culturally have little in common w/ the Asiatic countries nearest them - Iran, Turkey or any of the Arab countries south of them. Azerbaijan is tightly connected to both Iran & Turkey, and so are the 'stans'. As a result, all 6 of those countries are Asiatic countries, as opposed to 'Eurasian' or 'European'. Why are they so reluctant to admit it?

Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 09:29 · Score: 0

F in geography?
Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 11:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Look mommy, I did a Google.
Was your post plain ignorance or a bit of bigotry? I can't quite tell.
Re:Eurasian? by oldhack · 2014-01-11 11:00 · Score: 2

Shut the fuck up. Europe isn't even a real continent anyways.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 13:30 · Score: 0

Because Eurasia exists, you oafish simpleton. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Let me guess, you're from the USA.
Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 15:59 · Score: 0

Considering the university was founded in the 90s, maybe their name has something to do with Neo-Eurasianism... a movement that peaked around then declaring that Russian and many of the former Soviet countries should identify more with Asia than Europe, and was about shifting focus from emulating Europe to their own style or incorporating more from Asia...
Re:Eurasian? by unixisc · 2014-01-11 20:26 · Score: 1

Who, me? LOL
Re:Eurasian? by unixisc · 2014-01-11 20:33 · Score: 0

Why would it be bigotry? I was just pointing out that not every Europe wannabe country is a part of Europe. If Mongolia or Japan or India wanted to define itself as a part of Europe, would it? This is like the Lincoln question about a dog's legs.
I checked your link, Hon, and the case for Kazakhstan being in Europe @ all are hardly there. In most continental maps, Kazakhstan used to be shown solely in Asia, while the Ural mountains & river were the parts demarcating European & Asiatic Russia.
More importantly, the reason I asked is that all the ex-Soviet republics - not just Kazakhstan - want to be regarded as a part of Europe. All of them generally prefer to be part of European organizations e.g. RIPE, which is supposed to cover Europe as far as the Internet RIRs go, includes all of them and runs right up to Iran. But Europe really ends @ the Ural mountains, and Kazakhstan is politically not a trans-continental country.
Re:Eurasian? by unixisc · 2014-01-11 20:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, it exists, and the only 2 countries in it are Russia & Turkey. Georgia & Azerbaijan are stretched. In fact, culturally, Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan are more Turkic and part of Asia, while Georgia and Armenia are culturally European
Re:Eurasian? by Cochonou · 2014-01-11 21:43 · Score: 1

There is a growing trend to count Europe and Asia as a single continent (Eurasia), because physically they are a single entity.
Re:Eurasian? by unixisc · 2014-01-11 22:02 · Score: 1

In that case, this is new. Previously, countries like Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, et al were European countries, while countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, Israel, et al were Asian countries. So now, all of these are Eurasian countries?
Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 00:01 · Score: 0

I'm from Kazakhstan. While most of the country is in Asia, a part of it is in Europe.
Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 04:04 · Score: 0

In most continental maps, Kazakhstan used to be shown solely in Asia,
Emphasis added, regardless if it was a minority or majority of such maps, it wasn't all maps because the definition of what separates Europe and Asia north of Turkey gets kind of arbitrary.

while the Ural mountains & river were the parts demarcating European & Asiatic Russia.
Well, that works, considering Kazakhstan is on both sides of the Ural river...

Kazakhstan is politically not a trans-continental country.

And this is where the charges of bigotry come from. Either you are are unaware of their politics, or you're taking the route, "They may act European, but can't possibly count." Either you take the position it comes down to culturally how they act, or it comes down to geography, or you end up looking like you are flailing why trying to exclude them for stupid and incorrect reasons.
Re:Eurasian? by Cochonou · 2014-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1

Yes, this is something rather new, and of course this is not used by everybody - by far. I believe this trend has more traction in Asia than in Europe, that is why you'll see more Asian countries being called "Eurasian" than European countries.
Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 05:05 · Score: 0

Many places in the world teach there are only 5 or 6 continents, by not separating North & South America, and by not separating Europe and Asia. Eurasia is a union of Europe and Asia, so includes all European and Asian countries.
Re:Eurasian? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 02:53 · Score: 0

If, as you seem to accept, the Ural is the boundary then 10% of Kazakhstan is in Europe. No one ever claimed Kazakhstan is in Europe, but part of it is.

Re:Is slashdot viable ? by jones_supa · 2014-01-11 09:17 · Score: 1

He just wanted to know the revenue model. Even the concept of car has been working for over 100 years and still people ask the question "how does a car work?".

Re:Is slashdot viable ? by HiThere · 2014-01-11 10:06 · Score: 1

Personally, I choose to neither block not disable the ads. This is a part of my support for Slashdot.

OTOH, I also don't have Flash installed, and Java is disabled in my browser. Because I'm not stupid.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Grisha Perelman was also working on Navier-Stok by TechyImmigrant · 2014-01-11 10:12 · Score: 1

That's a bit passive aggressive. Becoming a mathematics genius Just so you can solve Millenium problems and then refuse the prize money.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.

Let's mod up things that use big words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 11:21 · Score: 0

Sorry, but while there are some bits and pieces in this comment that are not far from the mark, large parts of it seem more like word salad and have little to do with the n-body problem.

The system isn't differentiable and you can't actually perform infinitesimal steps.

Did you mean to say the system is not integrable? You can setup a pretty straight forward differential equation for the setup, but getting an analytic solution in general is a different story. Analytically you can perform infinitesimal time steps, as that is the whole point of calculus. Numerically you can't, at least not in a straightforward way, but at that point you are obviously not going with an analytic solution anyway. Although there are other systems where you can guarantee to converge on the actual solution, but not relevant to the n-body problem in general.

A system being chaotic is not mutually exclusive with having exact, analytic solutions. The problem with such systems is that all paths the solutions take diverge exponentially, so no matter how small of an error you start out with, that error will become significant on some timescale. The issue with such systems is not the lack of known solutions, but the lack of perfect measurements, that we don't know exactly the starting state (and computers are unlikely to be able to represent it), so that error will grow fast. This is a tangent to the idea of the system having solutions though.

because you can do bugger all with infinite multiway recursion

It isn't even regular recursion, it is just simple iteration...

What you CAN do is flatten the universe into a 2D holographic model.

The n body problem is just a simple system of differential equations, either you find a solution (or approximate solution) to it or not. If you remove time from it, you will find constants of motion like any other dynamic system, without any need to invoke "holographic."

Alternatively, with time dilation, you can make infinitesimal time arbitrarily large.

By definition, an infinitesimal number can't be made non-infinitesimal by just multiplying by some other finite number. Time dilation isn't going to fix this at all.

Re:Let's mod up things that use big words... by jd · 2014-01-11 12:02 · Score: 0

Comprehension is also your problem. Go read James Gleik for a bit, then maybe read some Mandelbrot. THEN come back and tell me about chaotic systems.
You have zero understanding of the Holographic Universe theory, that much is obvious. I won't waste my time explaining it, all I will say is that it is the only possible way this Kazakh professor could have done what he claimed. It is the only way to transform a non-solvable problem into one that could conceivably be solved. I do not believe he has succeeded (I am not sure I believe the theory either), but I am convinced he does and that he believes he has. There is only one path he could have taken to reach such a belief. Ergo, that is the path he took.
It should be obvious to even the smallest child that if approach X is doomed to failure, that the professor did not follow approach X. He did something else. It should also be obvious that, with the plethora of Holographic Universe papers on arXiv, along with papers on reduced-dimension n-body problem papers, that reduced-dimension approaches to problems has gained traction. But you're too busy complaining about terms you know nothing of to actually look at what people are doing. Way too busy.
So stop posting gibberish, read for once in your life, and maybe - just maybe - you will grasp what others are saying before you start spewing. God, how I hate it when lazy, incompetent bastards start thinking they know everything.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Let's mod up things that use big words... by martin-boundary · 2014-01-11 12:25 · Score: 1

Mate, you're skirting dangerously into crackpot territory. Quoting James Gleick as a scientific authority is demented. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're on thin ice. I'll assume that you have a specific form of differentiability with respect to a particular set of parameters in mind, which you didn't detail to us. Certainly, you're not helping yourself with statements such as "obvious to even the smallest child", "read for once in your life" etc.
Re:Let's mod up things that use big words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 13:23 · Score: 0

It is the only way to transform a non-solvable problem into one that could conceivably be solved."
it is called math doing math, in all but the most trivial examples you transform statements step by step until you connect it to what is the result or take a short step through work someone else has already done.

God, how I hate it when lazy, incompetent bastards start thinking they know everything.
I was think the same thing, considering my thesis was on various chaotic systems in physics, which did involve a wee bit of reading in the field... but you're half right, I'm lazy and don't feel like trying to explain things more carefully to someone with this attitude.

Two misleading statements by TroyHaskin · 2014-01-11 14:21 · Score: 4, Informative

The post states that the paper "is claiming to have found the solution to another Millennium Prize Problems" while the article's title is “Existence of a strong solution of the Navier-Stokes equations". By my interpretation, the paper is claiming to show the existence of strong solutions (that is, solutions satisfying the Navier-Stokes equations in non-Weak Form subjected to some set of boundary data) not a general (or any) solution, in particular. While the proof of existence is the Millennium Prize if the proof includes smoothness (continuity after some degree of differentiation), the fact of whether or not these solutions exist is irrelevant to most (if any) Fluid Mechanics texts and engineers/modelers.

The post also states that the Navier-Stokes is "fundamental [set of] partial differentials equations that describe the flow of incompressible fluids"; this is true if all the physical parameters (density, viscosity, and pressure) are taken as constants such that an equation-of-state and energy equation are not needed. However, if they are not assumed constant, the Navier-Stokes equations also perfectly describe the flow of compressible fluids if equipped with an energy equation, an equation-of-state, and other constitutive relations as needed. The only rub comes in when dealing with a fluid that is either not a contiguous field (such as fluids that break-up when immersed in another or, in some cases, a fluid undergoing phase change) or a fluid that does not obey the Stokes Hypothesis (an extension of the idea of a Newtonian fluid to multiple dimensions) which is used as a constitutive relation for the stress tensor in the Navier-Stokes equations.

Re:Two misleading statements by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:21 · Score: 0

The post states that the paper "is claiming to have found the solution to another Millennium Prize Problems" while the article's title is “Existence of a strong solution of the Navier-Stokes equations". By my interpretation, the paper is claiming to show the existence of strong solutions (that is, solutions satisfying the Navier-Stokes equations in non-Weak Form subjected to some set of boundary data) not a general (or any) solution, in particular. While the proof of existence is the Millennium Prize if the proof includes smoothness (continuity after some degree of differentiation), the fact of whether or not these solutions exist is irrelevant to most (if any) Fluid Mechanics texts and engineers/modelers.
Strong solutions are known to be smooth, if they exist.

Because it is written in mathematics, and ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:55 · Score: 0

on the last page it is in English.

When will the Clay Institute award a prize to NSA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:09 · Score: 0

For proving that P = NP.

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 05:16 · Score: 0

If P=1, N=1 then P=NP and P! = NP

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati by kmoser · 2014-01-12 05:18 · Score: 1

Or the elusive -0.

To Each? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 14:27 · Score: 0

I think the correct quote is:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Re:To Each? by Your.Master · 2014-01-15 01:00 · Score: 1

That's the quote for communism, not socialism. Socialism is "to each according to his contribution/work". The communist form decouples your needs and your abilities in a way that socialism does not.

Why not Chinese? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 22:44 · Score: 0

While I don't speak Russian either, I don't get why native English speakers always think their language is (and should be) the "default" one.

Sure, in Western nations it's working pretty well as an international compatibility/fallback language (because of its simplicity and the fact that many of these nations use Germanic languages so the differences are not that enormous), but as soon as we get out of the "Anglosphere", Chinese and Russian are far more significant.

Why in the world would you transliterate something into a less detailed language when your native is already widely spoken in your audience? There are plenty of people in the world who could (and probably will) do that anyway if enough English speakers want to read your paper.

I'm pretty sure most English speakers who read this will disagree with me and mod me flamebait, since the English language seems to be generating the largest echo chamber in existence. But imagine what you'd be thinking if you had just published a paper in English, in your own country and language, and people would be posting dismissive comments like "Why is this paper not in Chinese? It must not be important if it isn't in Chinese...".

Guess what, more than half the planet is used to finding content in a language they don't speak (English), and they rarely complain. An online (or offline) dictionary and/or Google Translate are not exactly hard tools to use.

Why not english by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 02:44 · Score: 0

But it’s irrelevant whether you can read his text. You are irrelevant to him. It’s only relevant whether the people who will check his solution can read it.

Precisely. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 14:27 · Score: 0

Except I hate to tell you, but the Jews are a made up people. Hitler invented them as an imaginary scapegoat, murdered 10.5 million innoccents to distract the German people from the war by fighting his fictional enemies, and then after the war some Poles got together with some Arabs and pretended to be the so-called "Jews" so half of them could emigrate to Brooklyn and the rest could score enough sympathy to get away with starting a new country.

Bizarrely, the other Arabs were so dumb they believed it and they've been trying to kill their erstwhile fellow Arabs ever since. Hard to figure.

Slashdot Mirror

Kazakh Professor Claims Solution of Another Millennium Prize Problem

162 comments