Answer to My Question about Formulation of Clay Navier-Stokes Prize Problem

Here is the response from the Clay Mathematics Institute on my message that the formulation of the Navier-Stokes Prize Problem does not include the fundamental aspect of wellposedness required for a mathematical model of a physics phenomenon to be meaningful:

Dear Dr Johnson,

Thank you for your interest in the Millennium Prize Problems. Complete details can be found athttp://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems.

As a matter of policy, the Clay Mathematics Institute does not join in discussion of the formulation of the Millennium Prize Problems, nor does it comment on potential solutions.  I am afraid that we have nothing to add to what is said on the CMI's website.

Best wishes,

Anne Pearsall (Mrs)
Administrative Assistant
Office of the President, Clay Mathematics Institute

Andrew Wiles Building

Radcliffe Observatory Quarter

Woodstock Road

Oxford OX2 6GG, UK

OK, so we learn that the Administrative Assistant of the President of the Clay Mathematics Institute, not the President himself,  "is afraid that we have nothing to add" and that the Institute "does not join in discussion of the formulation of the Millennium Prize Problems". 

Yes, this is indeed something to be afraid of, in particular if mr Clay himself understands that the formulation of the NS problem is unfortunate in the sense of lacking meaning to physics, and as a meaningless problem cannot have a meaningful solution. 

The fact that my question about the meaningfulnness of the NS Problem in its present formulation, is met by compact silence, may be interpreted as a silent acknowledgement that the formulation indeed is meaningless, and that it is purposely so in order to reserve the problem to meaningless mathematics and guarantee that, in Newton's words, "little smatterers" are kept out.