Clay Math Institute Response to Criticism of Navier Stokes Problem Formulation

Response from Martin Briden President Clay Mathematics Institute:

Dear Prof Johnson

I am familiar with the objections that you raise concerning the mathematical problem posed as the Millennium Prize Problem related to Navier-Stokes. Other applied mathematicians and engineers have expressed similar opinions. But I do not accept your conclusion that the problem “cannot be given a meaningful solution”.

I don’t think it has ever been claimed that the problem as posed dealt with turbulence in physical fluids, as you want to see addressed. It is nevertheless surely a natural and compelling question in the study of PDE. 

It may not be the problem that you would have wished to see as a Prize Problem, but from my point of view it has served its purpose well. 

Kind regards

Martin Bridson

My response: 

Dear Martin

Thank you for quick response, and acknowledgment that you are familiar with my criticism of the official formulation of the Navier-Stokes problem, which with the OpenAI solution gets new actuality. 

You say that the problem formulation has served Clay Institute well. I do not think this is so with now the AI solution presenting a potentially disastrous ground shot to mathematics as we know it: An AI proof to a problem without real meaning from physics and mathematics point of view, a 167 page proof which no mathematician can inspect in detail and so will have to be evaluated by the AI that has produced it. 

No mathematician has made any comment as if nothing has happened. But what will now be the fate of the Clay NS problem? Declared as solved but without any meaning? Debunked as nonsense AI with the problem remaining unsolved until next round of AI proof with doubled page number? How do you plan to handle the situation? Have you consulted with the experts behind the problem formulation? What do they say? How will the Clay Math Institute handle the new world of AI mathematics?

Sincerely

Claes