Hacker News Reader

There has been no independent verification. I am certain their Navier-Stokes proof is incorrect.

> I am certain their Navier-Stokes proof is incorrect.

How much are you willing to bet on this?

Whatever you want, further scrutiny will reveal an error among the noncomputable axioms (8k of them) that were used in the proof.

here you go

https://polymarket.com/event/openai-retracts-navier-stokes-s...

i hope to hear all about your riches in 2027

Is this a joke? What amount are you betting?

"I am 100% sure Microsoft stock will go up 20% tomorrow!"

"i call bs. Why don't you bet your money on it then?"

"well you shouldn't be talking either, you haven't bet money on the stock going down!"

It provided a formal proof in Lean.

Which is not the same thing that was written in informal prose & their proof has 8k non-computable axioms so you can't even write a program to verify their blowup example is actually a valid instance of a smooth flow that blows up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com