Another Millenium Problem May Have Been Solved 134
S3D writes "After recent verification of the proof of the Poincaré conjecture, another of the Clay Institute's Millenium Problems may have been solved. This new solution is for Navier-Stokes equations under physically reasonable conditions. Navier-Stocks equations describe the motion of fluid substances such as liquids and gases. Penny Smith has posted an Arxiv paper entitled 'Immortal Smooth Solution of the Three Space Dimensional Navier-Stokes System' which may prove the existence of such solutions."
Quite impressive (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quite impressive (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quite impressive (Score:5, Informative)
it's about the existence of a solution for certain boundary / initial conditions of the NSEs. This is still a very big deal because you can now expect correct results when doing numerical calculations. By the way you probably meant FEM (Finite Element Method), not "fractional element methods". FEM is rarely, if not at all used for solving the NSEs, you'd rather use Finite Volume Methods (applicable for structured and unstructured grids, as are FEM).
What is the geometry? (Score:3, Informative)
It is a big deal for the mathematicians. That is all
The N-S Eqn has been "solved" in 2D using Velocity Potential, Stream Function approach. But in 3D stream function does not exist and the method does not extend. But in practice the only problem that is really "solved" even in 2D was was this driven cavity problem, a box with a moving wall.
Take the much more simple to solve for a hundred years, the Heat Equation. Analytical solutions exist for simple domains like a semi infinite plate or a box with Dirichlet boundaries. But in practice ANSYS sells numerical solutions to Heat Equations and the industry has been buying millions dollars worth every year. Similarly FLUENT (Recently acquired by ANSYS) does not have to worry its market has fallen out of the bottom. For real life geometries we will be using numerical solutions of NS Eqn for the foreseeable future.
Further though I could not see any geometry restrictions in the paper, it appears as though they have just proved solutions exist, and not actually solved it. Depending on the assumptions made and terms neglected, engineers may be able to build better turbulence ing out of this.
Caveat: Though I started out in CFD I have not read CFD papers for some 12 years. and frankly I dont understand much of the math in this paper.
Re:Someone had better tell the Formula One teams (Score:4, Informative)
An important step (Score:5, Informative)
Back to the paper... While I am not a mathematician, the paper appears kind of rough to me - lots of punctuation errors, commas in the wrong place, unclosed parehtneses... I suspect this paper has not been fully through the peer review process. I don't know how the mathematicians do it, but I would say this paper is a draft (not discrediting the work - I am not quallfied to judge it - but it looks rough).
Re:Neat indeed (Score:3, Informative)
Just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it's unprovable.
Godel's incompleteness theorems [wikipedia.org]
Re:An important step (Score:2, Informative)
Not that I think you are making an attack on mathematicians here, but I just want to comment on this for anyone that might construe it as such.
Mathematicians do subject papers to full peer review before being published in any reputable journal, but the arXiv is not a journal in any sense of the word. It's a sever that holds preprints --- literally ANYONE can put ANY paper on it. There are dozens of papers there that claim to have solved the Goldbach conjecture, or the Riemann hypothesis, or proven that the real numbers are countable, etc.
Likely this paper has not been peer reviewed at all. Take it with a pound of salt.
Re:An arxiv article does not a headline make (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Neat indeed (Score:3, Informative)
Withdrawn (Score:4, Informative)