5 ms·
Just to point out re: navier stokes - what was being proven was not a solver or approximations for it, but showing specific circumstances under which it actuall
by dwroberts 6d ago
Just to point out re: navier stokes - what was being proven was not a solver or approximations for it, but showing specific circumstances under which it actually returns incorrect (or numerically unusable) answers. Which had been suspected but wasn't known for certain
- justonenote 6d agothat just furthers my point, i was vaguely aware that it wasn't a full proof, but I'm not a mathathician, and that detail just re-enforces my point we are proving against human made axiom (certainty of numbers) which are almost certainly not fully correct, if what you are saying is accurate its less of a proof of navier-stokes and more of a proof that our base axioma are not able the model the output of a real physical process and are therefore incomplete or wrong. also realized i posted this under the wrong story since the OP/story is mostly about human politics.