But the Official Description of Clay Navier-Stokes Prize Problem does not include the aspect of wellposedness.
A central aspect of incompressible flow described by the Navier-Stokes equations, is turbulence.
But the Official Description of the Clay Navier-Stokes Prize Problem does not include any aspect of turbulence.
The Official Description is thus questionable, to say the least, from both mathematical and physical point of view, by leaving out what is fundamental.
When I point this out to Charles Fefferman who has formulated the Official Description of the problem, and Luis Cafarelli who gives a video presentation thereof, and Peter Constantin who acts as referee to evaluate proposed solutions and Terence Tao who works to solve the problem and to the President of the Clay Institute, I get no reaction but silence.
This is not reasonable, since the Navier-Stokes equations and the mathematics thereof belongs to us all and thus must be open to public discussion, in particular so when it has been elevated to a Millennium Prize Problem of importance to humanity.
I sent to following renewed request to the people involved to reveal their cards:
I try to get a response from you concerning my questioning of the Official Description of Clay Navier-Stokes Prize Problem expressed here.
I get no response but compact silence. I don't think this is in the interest of a Clay Prize Problem as of concern to a wide mathematical and scientific community and not secluded to a very small closed circle.
I hope you can see that my questioning requires a response from you in your respective roles.
Sincerely, Claes Johnson
PS I raised the same question a couple of years ago, and the only response then on my question how the Prize problem could be meaningful without including the aspect of wellposednes , was Fefferman's short reply: "It is meaningful to me". I think this answer misses that fact that science is not only a private thing.