Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Math

Kazakh Professor Claims Solution of Another Millennium Prize Problem 162

Posted by Soulskill
from the awaiting-peer-review dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Kazakh news site BNews.kz reports that Mukhtarbay Otelbaev, Director of the Eurasian Mathematical Institute of the Eurasian National University, is claiming to have found the solution to another Millennium Prize Problems. His paper, which is called 'Existence of a strong solution of the Navier-Stokes equations' and is freely available online (PDF in Russian), may present a solution to the fundamental partial differentials equations that describe the flow of incompressible fluids for which, until now, only a subset of specific solutions have been found. So far, only one of the seven Millennium problems was solved — the Poincaré conjecture, by Grigori Perelman in 2003. If Otelbaev's solution is confirmed, not only it might be the first time that the $1 million offered by the Clay Millennium Prize will find a home (Perelman refused the prize in 2010), but also engineering libraries will soon have to update their Fluid Mechanic books."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kazakh Professor Claims Solution of Another Millennium Prize Problem

Comments Filter:
  • by Frans Faase (648933) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @01:23PM (#45927097) Homepage
    If it is such an important article, why did he not find someone to translate it to English? He did get some related papers published in English. It seems that those are about approximations. Interesting non the less.
  • by bunratty (545641) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @01:41PM (#45927183)
    I think you're confusing science with technology and engineering.
  • Not a crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:11PM (#45927325)

    Otelbaev has published in some very respected journals, and trained with the very top people. His work is worth serious scrutiny. Of course, it is easy, even for the most brilliant scholars, to make a mistake which makes it look as if a big problem has fallen. Skepticism, but no mockery, please.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:42PM (#45927511)

    Yes because Soviet Russia has contributed so much to hard science: Nuclear technology... stolen from the US, rocket technology... stolen from Germany, microchip design... stolen from Intel, Space Shuttle design... stolen from NASA. Oh wait, they stole nearly all of their technology from the west. The free market has been proven time and again as the best incubator for scientific discovery and innovation. It's too bad you let your liberal professors shove your head so far up your posterior. You might want to do some research and educate yourself on the facts of who has done what for scientific discovery.

    What a bunch of bullshit. And the worst is /. modding your post insightful.
    Do I need to remind you that most of scientific advances in post WW2 in the US were due to german scientists and german technology pilfered by the Americans ? Of course the Soviets pilfered Germany also.
    The Soviet school of mathematics pre and post WW2 was much more productive than the american one. Soviet physics and engineering were also nothing to sneer at. Americans look at Soviet science and technology the same way they looked at the Japanese pre WW2. Monkeys incapable of doing anything. Hoorah for american exceptionalism.
    Fuck you and your us navel gazing ideology.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 11, 2014 @03:11PM (#45927717)

    I take exception to the use of the word "Claim" here. I never see this used for American or Western professionals?

    In fact here on Slashdot we have a story about "Cheshire Cat" observations by a group and "Claim" wasn't used there.

    You (Slashdot) are being highlighted for your stereotypes and western aligned views again.

  • by wagnerrp (1305589) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @04:25PM (#45928161)
    It has nothing to do with nationality. It has to do with finding a solution to a prominent problem, widely used in industry, that has gone unsolved for well over a hundred years. If you do something evolutionary, or something no one else has done before, then there's no history on which to base doubt. If you do something where so many others have already tried and failed, then inductive logic dictates skepticism until you have independent verification otherwise.

A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do. -- Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...