Kazakh Professor Claims Solution of Another Millennium Prize Problem 162
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."
Re:Overcompensating (Score:5, Funny)
great. another reason for "oh, you need to buy new textbooks for the class this semester".
Re: (Score:1)
Overcompensating .... I guess he's still angry about that Baron Cohen Movie.
If solving one of the Millennium Prize problems is a form of "overcompensating" then I'm all for it.
Can we get somebody to overcompensate with fusion power too?
Re: Overcompensating (Score:1)
search on ted foe the 19 year old graduating from high school who is switching his focus from the last time he gave a ted talk about fusion at 14 to his new interest and business venture fission.
Re: (Score:1)
China has a plan to build it fleet to include at least 4 aircraft carriers. China's first carrier battle group recently did a photo op, sailing in formation. In effect they were announcing to the world, "We've arrived."
India just took possession of a third aircraft carrier. Japan has just built its largest "destroyer" since World War 2, one that can carry aircraft. I won't be surprised if it builds more, especially given China's aggressive behavior. Britain is building 2 new large carriers. The aircra
Re: (Score:1)
Defense / Social welfare the money is going to the same guys in the end. The same guys that are on the boards of Boeing and Raytheon are the same guys who are running the citys social welfare programs to ensure everyone can afford to live in a subsidized apartment complex that they happen to have stake in. I don't see the USA building any more carriers largely because the same people that run the defense and social welfare agencies also have houses and bank accounts in China, India, Sweeden, etc.. It is
Re: (Score:1)
The US as several more carriers planned, and that hasn't stopped yet.
I think your view of common defense firm board membership along with slum-lord apartment complex ownership among a common multi-national global super-elite that has decreed no more big wars isn't one that is well rooted in reality.
We are far from a "one-world order."
Re: (Score:2)
Social Security and Medicare are not budget items, they're trust items. People have paid into them, and are allowed to take their portions back out. The Pentagram budget is the single largest discretionary budget item by far. Add in the alphabet soup of intel agencies and the utterly unconstitutional Black Budget and it's an even larger percentage. It's depressing that it is actually illegal for taxpayers to know how much of their money the military is wasting.
Re: (Score:1)
How is Social Security financed? [washingtonpost.com]
About 96 percent of workers must pay a certain amount of their paycheck, generally 6.2 percent, into the system, an amount that is matched by their employers. (Some state and local workers don’t participate in Social Security.)
This results in a 12.4 percent tax on income, as most economists would agree that the full amount is taken from the worker’s wage compensation.
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, which means that payments collected today are immediately used to pay benefits. Until recently, more payments were collected than were needed for benefits. So, Social Security loaned the money to the U.S. government, which used it for other things. In exchange, Social Security receives interest-bearing Treasury securities. The value of those bonds is now nearly $2.8 trillion.
Re: (Score:3)
Prior to WWII the Soviets were second only the the Germans in rocket technology, while Goddard was stuck out in the desert begging rich New Yorkers for drips and drabs of funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. How the heck did this post get up here? Meant to reply to someone lower in the thread.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't mind, it is an interesting post. ;)
Re:It kind of makes me sad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of butt-ironic then they often aped capitalist rewards by giving housing upgrades and other goodies to scientists who made a mark on the world stage, much like Olympic athletes.
They are dancing people, singing for their supper for dictators who have artificially restricted the market for maximum control...of political opponents.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
"To each according to his contribution" is a core tenet of Socialism, not "aping Capitalism." Paying people more for greater labors is not the defining aspect of Capitalism --- rather, it's whether people are allowed to use their money to control the labor of others and accumulate an ever-growing cut for themselves without working (a Capitalist class who gets richer as a reward for being rich, while controlling the work/lives of the majority). None of the former Soviet-bloc countries considered themselves t
Re: (Score:1)
"To each according to his contribution" is a core tenet of Socialism.
I call BS on this. If it were true socialist countries wouldn't provide welfare to people who sit on their asses and contribute nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
"To each according to his contribution" is a core tenet of Socialism. I call BS on this. If it were true socialist countries wouldn't provide welfare to people who sit on their asses and contribute nothing.
Yeah, it's almost as if all those countries that are labeled by Fox News as "Socialist" aren't actually socialist.
Nah, couldn't be. Fox News hosts are infallible.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. They don't. Generally Democracies are where that happens. In Socialist countries people who sit on their asses and contribute nothing go to the gulag as hooligans. From Each According to His Ability! If you truly had no ability, you would also have no value. But everybody has some ability. If you do nothing, you're a hooligan, you're anti-social.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the quote for communism, not socialism. Socialism is "to each according to his contribution/work". The communist form decouples your needs and your abilities in a way that socialism does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, Capitalism is the premise that business people will all cheat to make a buck, that this is harmful to investment, and that if a neutral third party (the Government) regulates in certain ways to create a level playing field, then Capital is free to flow, and the economy is based around where people want Capital to flow. Whereas prior, in an unregulated economy, established interests will almost always conspire against newcomers, and new capital won't flow at all into an industry unless somebody has
Re: (Score:1)
What you describe is technology that becomes possible *after* most of the research has been done.
Scientific discovery is and always has been made by state-sponsored research institutions, be that in a free market society or the former USSR. There are only very few exceptions.
The USSR had outstanding scientists, but their production facilities weren't always up to the task.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
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 a
Re: (Score:3)
Except that even that isn't largely true. Yes, it's true that the US heavily relied on German rocket scientists to build up its space program. What's *not* true is the concept that the Soviets did the same. The US actively sought out and brought to the US almost all high-level German rocket scientists after the war during Operation Paperclip, as well as over 100 V2s. The Soviets got almost nobody of significance (Helmut Gröttrup being the only noteworthy exception), and mainly only got line technicians
Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
or P=0
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
re Need new editions of Fluid Mechanics textbooks (Score:2, Funny)
Oh no. Textbook publishers HATE having to do that....
Re: (Score:2)
Why not in English? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it goes better than the anthem this time.
As with the anthem, I'd only be concerned about translations of this paper that are unofficial. [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's common for such papers that aren't written directly in English to only be translated after their original version has been released
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed it is (very) common. It will be translated, in due course, for a broader audience. For a paper like this it's extremely important that a translation is correct, and that takes time. The ones demanding an English version up front need to, frankly, grow up a bit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It should be in English, because that's the language I speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If it is such an important article, why did he not find someone to translate it to English?
What is wrong with Russian? Is English somehow more important than Russian?
Nothing is wrong with Russian. But if you want a wider international audience to read your article you're going to have to have an english and in the future chinese versions available.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should he want a wider audience? Why should he care? If English-speaking people don't want to learn Russian, they'll just wait for somebody to translate it. Why should waiting for that be bad? He's in Russia, it is entirely natural to release it only in Russian.
If I made some neat discovery I would release it only in English. If somebody told me, "oh, the world wants this type of paper in Italian now," I would tell them to translate it.
And if I want something in C that is in Perl, I'll port it myself if
Re: (Score:2)
The mere fact that you wrote this post in English answers that question.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, whatever. I'm English nor American, and I can reply in several languages you wouldn't understand, but I can accept there is a (global) lingua franca. It has been Greek, Latin, German, and French. It might even have been Aramic at some point and place. Now it's English.
Re: (Score:1)
Russian was the International standard for publication of scientific discoveries in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Russian was fluently spoken as a second language in academia across Europe and America at that time. Einstein's early publications would have had Russian translations or might even have been written in Russian first. It was the lingua franca of science at that time. That matters, in that all the necessary terminology and shorthand developed in science in the last few hundred years will already ex
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Einstein's early publications would have had Russian translations or might even have been written in Russian first. It was the lingua franca of science at that time.
I think you're confusing "Russian" with "German," which was a major scientific language of the time (and, indeed, used in Einstein's early papers). Russian became a major scientific language during the mid 20th century, when scientific research was carried out in parallel on both sides of the "iron curtain" (frequently resulting in near-simultaneous discoveries and advancements, independently worked out by research groups on both sides).
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true, then non-Euclidean geometries would have had a much earlier start. It wasn't. Nobody in the West understood Russian, so Lobachevsky's work was ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't somebody have multiple motivations?
If I solved the Navier-Stokes problem, I'd be stoked about lots of things, and among them would be a million dollars.
If you can't enjoy two things, your priorities aren't fucked up because they *don't exist at all*. Since priorities are comparisons between multiple things you want.
My desire for 1 million dollars would be greater than my desire to delay publication so that no Russian speakers learn of this before Frans Faase does.
I'm really wondering about your p
Conspiracy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Hell with the college text books. It's all the CFD (computational fluid dynamics) code that is going to have to be rewritten. Currently, (as I understand it), all this code approximates or partially solves Navier-Stokes for different special cases. Good work if you are the right kind of engineering analyst-programmer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, define three points, and a fourth point not coplanar with the first three. Now, sum up the area of the triangles defined by the fourth point, and subtract the area of the triangle of the first three. You thus define a field that is zero on the triangle of the first three, but nonzero everywhere else. Now, if you substitute a function for the perpendicular position of point four, you can get a field that is zero on a predefined curved plane, bounded by the three-point triangle.
Now, divide any arbitrary surface into such triangles, and multiply the fields together, and you will have a field that is zero on the surface of your object, nonzero everywhere else.
Do this with Parker-sochacki equations, and the solution is computationally simple.
Now, based on this field define a coordinate system whose air velocity is a function of the field value, and zero where the field is zero.
Now, again using Parker-Sochacki, plug that into the Navier Stokes equations, under the effect of a body force that is a miniscule fraction of the difference in velocity from your desired free-stream velocity.
The result will be a mclauren (taylor) series that gives the velocity of the air at any point and time. Since the existance and uniqueness of the Parker Sochacki is already proven, then the existance/uniqueness of the Navier-Stokes solution is also provable.
Re:Conspiracy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
While It might sound as if though it's a claim to have found an explicit formula for n-particle motion in every case, it's fairly clear that they're talking about particular cases. It also seems unlikely that he makes trivial errors given that he got a PhD from MSU.
Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (Score:5, Informative)
Well, yes and no. There is no general solution to the n-body problem, where n is greater than 2. The nature of the system makes that inevitable. The system isn't differentiable and you can't actually perform infinitesimal steps.
What you can do is define bounds for certain special cases, where the solutions must exist within those bounds. The error on the bounds increases quite quickly, which is why space probes are forever making course corrections. Bounds do not exist in all cases, as three bodies is sufficient for the system to be chaotic (deterministic but not predictable), which means in those cases, you rely heavily on probability (meteorologists perform hundreds of thousands of simulations and see what general patterns have the highest probability of cropping up) and on very short timeframes (in snooker, you can make a reasonable guess as to what will happen one or two reflections ahead).
These are inescapable properties of multibody dynamics, because you can do bugger all with infinite multiway recursion. There is no way to simplify it... ...as it is.
What you CAN do is flatten the universe into a 2D holographic model. If there is no time, there is no place for recursion. That might yield something. Alternatively, with time dilation, you can make infinitesimal time arbitrarily large. Neither of these will yield an absolute answer, but could be expected to yield an answer that looked as though it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the Holographic Universe theory perfectly well. And nothing can excuse Princess Bride Memeology. Now gerroff my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maths and philosophy are directly interchangeable. This is why camels are so confused.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no general solution to the n-body problem, where n is greater than 2. The nature of the system makes that inevitable. The system isn't differentiable and you can't actually perform infinitesimal steps.
That's bull. The system is perfectly differentiable (in fact, that's how you write the equations of motion) and you cannot perform infinitesimal steps for any system. Numerical solution use finite discretization, which is a decent approximation for well-behaved solutions and fails for chaotic ones (such as n-body general problems). The actual problem is that there's no general closed-form solution, and approximations break down due to chaotic behavior in the majority of cases. However, there exist particula
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing setting up a system of differential equations (which you can do) with the system being differentiable (which is quite another matter).
Your post largely restates what I stated, so as far as I am concerned, you are more concerned with being pompous than with comprehending what it is you are being pompous about. Wake me up when you grow enough of a pair to read as well as write.
Re: (Score:3)
Arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1677
The solution is published there, and easy to understand.
Considering that the Taylor series is an exact solution, and existance /uniqueness of the solution has been proven, one can.definitively say that the solution is numerically differentiable. That is not CFD/FEM. That is an exact solution.
Re: (Score:1)
Comprehension is also your problem. Go read James Gleik for a bit, then maybe read some Mandelbrot. THEN come back and tell me about chaotic systems.
You have zero understanding of the Holographic Universe theory, that much is obvious. I won't waste my time explaining it, all I will say is that it is the only possible way this Kazakh professor could have done what he claimed. It is the only way to transform a non-solvable problem into one that could conceivably be solved. I do not believe he has succeeded (I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe his claim. My father published the solution to the n-body problem: it involves applying the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration to celestial mechanics.
Google it. His tutorial is easy to understand and use for other applications.
http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/parkersochacki.htm [jmu.edu]
Arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1677
Why do I believe his claim? Because although Parker and Sochacki independently came up with their solutions, my father believes that others have as well: an italian guy seems to h
Eurasian National University (Score:2)
Eurasian National University?
I thought 1984 was fiction...
Not a crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
a triumph of.. (Score:1)
You can solve minor physics problems starting in their relavistic form, but most engineers still use Newtonian physics.
Re: (Score:1)
...mathematics, but real fluids are compressible, viscous and varying properties.
Water, and many similar fluids, are effectively incompressible (except when considering the largest scales). As a specialist in fluid dynamics, I could care less what people do with compressible fluids. The field is more or less split 50/50.
Why use the word "Claim" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Eurasian? (Score:2)
Director of the Eurasian Mathematical Institute of the Eurasian National University
Kazakhstan and all the 'stans' are in Asia. Why do they have to pretend to be associated w/ Europe by using the term 'Eurasian'? The only 2 Eurasian countries that exist are the Russian Federation and Turkey. Russia since west of the Urals is Europe and east of it is Asia. Turkey since Anatolia is in Asia while the East Thrace part of the country is in Europe.
But none of the other countries are 'Eurasian'. Georgia and Armenia might be considered European, since they culturally have little in common w
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Look mommy, I did a Google [wikipedia.org].
Was your post plain ignorance or a bit of bigotry? I can't quite tell.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would it be bigotry? I was just pointing out that not every Europe wannabe country is a part of Europe. If Mongolia or Japan or India wanted to define itself as a part of Europe, would it? This is like the Lincoln question about a dog's legs.
I checked your link, Hon, and the case for Kazakhstan being in Europe @ all are hardly there. In most continental maps, Kazakhstan used to be shown solely in Asia, while the Ural mountains & river were the parts demarcating European & Asiatic Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two misleading statements (Score:4, Informative)
The post also states that the Navier-Stokes is "fundamental [set of] partial differentials equations that describe the flow of incompressible fluids"; this is true if all the physical parameters (density, viscosity, and pressure) are taken as constants such that an equation-of-state and energy equation are not needed. However, if they are not assumed constant, the Navier-Stokes equations also perfectly describe the flow of compressible fluids if equipped with an energy equation, an equation-of-state, and other constitutive relations as needed. The only rub comes in when dealing with a fluid that is either not a contiguous field (such as fluids that break-up when immersed in another or, in some cases, a fluid undergoing phase change) or a fluid that does not obey the Stokes Hypothesis (an extension of the idea of a Newtonian fluid to multiple dimensions) which is used as a constitutive relation for the stress tensor in the Navier-Stokes equations.
Re:"another Millennium Prize Problems." (Score:5, Funny)
'more that', instead of 'more that'
So much irony it is delicious...
I want to be a fluid mechanic (Score:1)
I don't really know what's involved, but if there's a textbook that teaches you how to be a fluid mechanic, I am sure that's for me!
Re: (Score:2)
It has been up and running for over 15 years. Is there some problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I choose to neither block not disable the ads. This is a part of my support for Slashdot.
OTOH, I also don't have Flash installed, and Java is disabled in my browser. Because I'm not stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit passive aggressive. Becoming a mathematics genius Just so you can solve Millenium problems and then refuse the prize money.