🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 12:23:25 UTC No. 16187765
Will the remaining Millennium Prize Problems be solved during this century?
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 12:55:14 UTC No. 16187790
I know Tao is working on RH because he tells everyone not to work on it.
Navier stokes problem is actually 4 different problems but they're equivalent. So maybe that one will be proven in the next 100 years.
P=NP is a complexity theory problem which also is probably easy to prove once you know the trick.
BSD conjecture will probably remain unsolved for 1000 years.
Hodge conjecture is a algebraic topology problem, this one is a good challenge for young phd students.
Yang-Mills and existance gap is like infinitely many problems so there's no way to solve it. Not only that but it has to be solved for every compact group G, which already poses a problem.
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 17:33:44 UTC No. 16188183
>>16187765
Yes
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 19:40:58 UTC No. 16188376
>>16187790
how do you know so much about math?
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 20:36:20 UTC No. 16188481
>>16187790
What trick is there to prove P=NP easily?
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 04:39:23 UTC No. 16188969
>>16188481
Diagonal cut
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 05:01:25 UTC No. 16188982
>>16187790
>I know Tao is working on RH because he tells everyone not to work on it.
He won't solve it for the same reason he failed to solve the Navier-Stokes problem–both are topological in nature
>P=NP is a complexity theory problem which also is probably easy to prove once you know the trick.
Topology problem (complexity classes are related to characteristic classes)
>BSD conjecture will probably remain unsolved for 1000 years.
Topology problem (via relation of the L-function to the Riemann zeta function, whose nontrivial 0s have an index theorem)
>Hodge conjecture is a algebraic topology problem, this one is a good challenge for young phd students.
Guess what, Topology problem
>Yang-Mills and existance gap is like infinitely many problems so there's no way to solve it. Not only that but it has to be solved for every compact group G, which already poses a problem.
Topology problem. You can solve it by further developing Floer Homology
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 05:13:04 UTC No. 16188986
BSD and Hodge will be the next to be solved. P=NP will never be solved. That's my opinion.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 05:25:07 UTC No. 16188992
>>16188481
I imagine it's something similar to how the halting problem was proved.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 05:42:07 UTC No. 16189000
>>16188982
Poincare conjecture also was a topology problem, but perelman solved it using analysis methods.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 08:50:12 UTC No. 16189193
navier-stokes (my money's on counter-example) or hodge is next, BSD is a coinflip, P=NP will never be solved, yang-mills mass gap will be solved next century by aliens.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 19:02:35 UTC No. 16189895
>>16189193
>P=NP will never be solved
Why not?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 05:56:49 UTC No. 16190703
>>16188376
I learnt it all here on /sci/
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 17:18:23 UTC No. 16191310
>P=NP will never be solved
that's the next one to go probably. Some nigger on /pol/ was talking about trying to solve it. He was clearly autistic and had a rough gameplan. I also gave him some other ideas on how to approach it. My money is some dipshit turboautist with nothing to lose and nothing else going on in his life putting all his eggs in one basket is going to get this one. He's eastern european too lmao.
>RH
Someone on /sci/ here made a thread about his (prospective) papers related to prime numbers. He was dangerously close to understanding the underlying reasons for the distribution of the primes, and probably understood their connection to the zeta function. This is why you don't go around advertising your work, by the way, because even if you mention something in an exceedingly vague way, if someone knows what you're talking about they know what you're talking about.
If he doesn't get it, he may lay the foundation to tackle the problem quickly afterwards. Lots of people are obviously working on this one, and some are legitimate. Tao might have a rough idea as well; although it's been a while and he's telling people it can't be done. Like an earlier anon said, he's either on the right track or he got frustrated and doesn't see it. Which is weird, because it's pretty obvious how to tackle the problem in general, at least conceptually, and some of his previous work is outright connected.
Perelman was also working on navier stokes I heard. That's another one that's relatively obvious on how to do it, and the tools are already available.
One of these three will be next, unless someone pulls the hodge one out of their ass in a phd thesis or something.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 17:32:05 UTC No. 16191319
>>16187765
AI assisted proof of RH published in 2027
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 17:32:57 UTC No. 16191321
>>16191319
nightmare future
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 18:55:46 UTC No. 16191439
>>16191319
it will be 10 Terrabytes long and no human will be able to check that it's correct
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:37:18 UTC No. 16191498
>>16187790
>>16188982
That's not what he said though. He said the tools aren't there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XES
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:46:13 UTC No. 16191513
>>16191498
I think what anon is implying is that Tao is trying to convince people that it's pointless to think about RH because the tools aren't there, while he is probably himself developing the tools or at least thinking about the problem. Which, he probably is, otherwise he wouldn't have made the connection between raven's matrices and pseudorandomness and the prime numbers. He's obviously interested. I wouldn't be surprised if he cares about it more than anything else.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:47:27 UTC No. 16191518
>>16191439
how much will they pay someone to make an AI to check the proof is correct?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:53:15 UTC No. 16191528
>>16191513
>he is probably himself developing the tools or at least thinking about the problems
Of course, all mathematicians are doing this. They tackle problems that they see a way to approach and sometimes tools/methodologies fall out that can be used to solve previously unsolved problems just like any science. None of this means he's trying to convince people pursuing/thinking about the Riemann hypothesis is pointless. That's just a wrong way to think about it
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 20:00:25 UTC No. 16191545
>>16191498
What a complete retard. We need to stop calling people who run biological ports of Lean™ mathematicians. Read his Navier-Stokes paper, his proof suggestion is building a fluidic von Neumann machine that programs itself to achieve blowup. Embarrassingly incurious and uncreative. If you want to know what real math looks like, read Arnol’d’s Topological Methods in Hydrodynamics. Not only is it beautiful, it shows how powerful new tools can be for illuminating problems, giving hints about where greater tools may lie.
As for RH, I’ll just leave this here:
https://www.ams.org/notices/200208/
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 21:09:24 UTC No. 16191639
>>16191498
He talks like I used to talk when I was twelve and hadn't learned how to stop and think before opening my mouth.
Very endearing.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 21:43:36 UTC No. 16191689
>>16191513
>between raven's matrices
oh whoops, no idea where I got that from. disregard
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 22:07:51 UTC No. 16191705
>>16191439
>it will be 10 Terrabytes long and no human will be able to check that it's correct
i am laughing so hard at this thank you
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 06:58:05 UTC No. 16192221
>>16191689
you were close, the word is random matrices, and Tau has been working on that topic for a while now...
https://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/s
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 12:52:04 UTC No. 16192536
>>16192221
how recent is his latest work on matrices? I want to beat him, to be frank
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 12:58:16 UTC No. 16192545
I think the RH and navier stokes are the closest to be solved as of right now.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 13:08:42 UTC No. 16192557
>>16187790
No. The milennium problem, as stated, is proving the existence and smoothness of full solutions to the navier stokes.
This is entirely different than explaining turbulence or giving a full, computable solution. The crazy part is someone can solve the milennium problem without ever even advancing our knowledge of turbulence at all.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 18:00:18 UTC No. 16192875
>>16191545
>Embarrassingly incurious and uncreative.
Currently the basedest post on the board.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 18:01:20 UTC No. 16192877
>>16192875
söy
test
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 18:08:07 UTC No. 16192884
where is the tooker posting?
also I'm just a wagie but they don't look that hard, I want to solve one so I can get some hookers and cocaine.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 18:16:40 UTC No. 16192890
>>16192884
That'd be the hardest way to earn a million. You have better odds of becoming the CEO of the supermarket you work at.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 06:24:11 UTC No. 16193656
>>16192890
Or you can try to solve them while being the supermarket CEO
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 07:07:18 UTC No. 16193687
>>16192890
There is no "chance". You will either be intelligent enough to solve the problem, or you wont be. Your IQ isn't up to "chance" it's an aggregate of your ancestor's choices and how much positive (or negative) selection on IQ they experienced.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 08:09:11 UTC No. 16193752
>>16192890
I like this thinnking. If we put a billion monkeys to prove the Riemann hypothesis, one of them must get it!
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 10:21:09 UTC No. 16193907
>>16188969
Please explain
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 10:25:20 UTC No. 16193916
>>16187790
>I know Tao is working on RH because he tells everyone not to work on it.
Counterpoint: Tao isn't working on it, because he can't find any collaborators willing to do 80% of the work and give Tao 80% of the credit.