OpenAI The method of proving the Navier-Stokes equation is accused of being inconsistent with the official narrative: it will take several years for academic verification, and the contribution of the agent is also a mystery

IT House reported on October 17 that OpenAI published a 166-page proof related to the Navier–Stokes equations in September this year, saying that its internal AI system completed the solution to this millennium problem in about 88 hours. However, as the mathematical community further scrutinized the work, researchers began to question the methods used in the proof, its relationship to existing research, and the actual role of large-scale AI agents. Mathematician Gonzalo Cao-Labora pointed out that OpenAI may have been published in a hurry without even understanding it. He said that the proof details of OpenAI take a different route from the method previously proposed by Spanish mathematicians Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez-Zoroa, and the similarities between the two may be more superficial. Multiple groups of experts who participated in the review told Scientific American that there are increasing signs that the proof of OpenAI does not follow the “Spanish line.” This means that OpenAI did not seem to fully understand what its model was doing when it published the results. IT Home Note: The Navier-Stokes equation is used to describe fluid motion and is one of the Millennium Prize problems established by the Clay Mathematics Institute. OpenAI released related research on September 8, saying that its internal model has completed mathematical proofs, and also disclosed the proof written using the Lean formal verification language. OpenAI said that its research team used about 10,000 AI agents and obtained the results in about 88 hours, and then spent about 17 hours to complete the formalization and verification work. Lean can check whether the logical derivation in formal proof conforms to the set rules, but passing formal verification does not mean that the problem solved by the proof must meet the original concerns of the researcher.