Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kazakh Professor Claims Solution of Another Millennium Prize Problem

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the awaiting-peer-review dept.

Math 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."

cancel ×

162 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Overcompensating (0, Offtopic)

nospam007 (722110) | about 9 months ago | (#45926999)

I guess he's still angry about that Baron Cohen Movie.

My math ends here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927115)

GRS= -\frac{\frac{\delta u}{\delta x1}}{\frac{\delta u}{\delta x2}}

Re:Overcompensating (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927205)

I guess he's still angry about that Baron Cohen Movie.

Sort of like how Jews are still angry about being gassed and cremated ?

Re:Overcompensating (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about 9 months ago | (#45927223)

great. another reason for "oh, you need to buy new textbooks for the class this semester".

Re:Overcompensating (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45927297)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928957)

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?

If all the money that is currently being wasted on the various military adventures
the US is involved with around the world was redirected to R&D devoted only to fusion
power, fusion power might happen some day soon.

Instead, we see billions wasted on things like aircraft carriers which are weapons of the
20th century. This is what you get when you get psychotic old men controlling the show.

It kind of makes me sad... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927021)

...that as the world-leading Soviet scientific education system is replaced with a the religion of the Invisible Hand, aka the market model, these nations will end up producing less and less.

Re:It kind of makes me sad... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927171)

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.

Re:It kind of makes me sad... (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45927183)

I think you're confusing science with technology and engineering.

Re:It kind of makes me sad... (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45927347)

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:It kind of makes me sad... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927645)

"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 to be at the "full-blown Communism" stage, where abundant goods were distributed to all regardless of work input. "Socialism," as defined in the Marxist framework with an end goal of Communism, is in no way contradictory with paying hard workers more (but for their own use/enjoyment, not for authority over other people Capitalism-style).

Re:It kind of makes me sad... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928407)

"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:It kind of makes me sad... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 9 months ago | (#45928567)

"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:It kind of makes me sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927537)

I think you're confusing science with technology and engineering.

Also, I think the post is confusing stolen with copy -- ideas like to be duplicated, not erased.

Re:It kind of makes me sad... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927321)

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:It kind of makes me sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927695)

Be careful with your "always" there is a great history of research being made possible by patrons of some sort, but the idea of the state sponsoring this research is somewhat new in historical terms, simply because the state's purse didn't exist to sponsor it.

Re:It kind of makes me sad... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:It kind of makes me sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927773)

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.

Reminds me of the decades old American quote: "Our (US) German scientists are better than your (USSR) German scientists." Those scientists were somewhat stunned when they were interrogated by the US wanting to know how they came up with their ideas for rocket technology.

Their ideas came from the American, Robert Goddard, and his US patents; rocket clubs created by German youths, one of them Wehner von Braun, were started for that very reason.

Russian Nobel laureates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927627)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Nobel_laureates

Yay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927027)

Go Borat

Hopefully correct but will wait for verification (0)

nayrbn (2704751) | about 9 months ago | (#45927031)

These claims often occur, even publicly (remember, what was it, the IBM researcher who claimed to have solved the N=?NP problem?) but it is rare for them to be true. But, it would be fabulous for another one of these problems to have been solved.

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (3, Informative)

techprophet (1281752) | about 9 months ago | (#45927139)

It's P=NP, you insensitive clod!

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (3, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 9 months ago | (#45927189)

Clearly both P and N are 1.0

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 9 months ago | (#45927197)

(I refuse to believe that we've wasted our time on the alternate solution, which is nothing)

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927199)

or P=0

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927745)

We don't have to know what N is. P = 0 and done.

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45927193)

No, it's P!=NP.

Re: Hopefully correct but will wait for verificati (0)

davester666 (731373) | about 9 months ago | (#45927233)

Clearly both P and N are not 0 or 1.

"another Millennium Prize Problems." (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927059)

Stupid Americans.

Always writing 'a women', 'more then', 'more that', instead of 'more that', writing 'an' instead of 'a', writing 'of' instead of 'have' - your country is rapidly turning into a third world shithole...

Re:"another Millennium Prize Problems." (4, Funny)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 9 months ago | (#45927089)

Or it's just a typo.

'more that', instead of 'more that'

So much irony it is delicious...

Re:"another Millennium Prize Problems." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927091)

dat grammer

I want to be a fluid mechanic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927239)

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:"another Millennium Prize Problems." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927497)

There's no millennium prize for grammar.

re Need new editions of Fluid Mechanics textbooks (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927083)

Oh no. Textbook publishers HATE having to do that....

Re:re Need new editions of Fluid Mechanics textboo (2)

weakref (2554172) | about 9 months ago | (#45927105)

Aren't you missing a "sarcasm" tag?

Why not in English? (4, Insightful)

Frans Faase (648933) | about 9 months ago | (#45927097)

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.

Re:Why not in English? (2)

qaz123 (2841887) | about 9 months ago | (#45927157)

Somebody will translate it

Re:Why not in English? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#45927285)

I hope it goes better than the anthem this time.

Re:Why not in English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927395)

As qas123 notes in another reply, if this is worthy, then "Somebody will translate it".
If you had a million dollars coming to you, would you waste time translating something before letting the world know of the progress made?
Not only may his paper help people who know his native language, but may help ensure that he becomes the first. Elisha Gray once complained about being an hour or two behind Alexander Graham Bell in filing an appropriate patent for the telephone. If a person has something solid and tangible, then it makes sense to make an early announcement, and then take care of details later.

Re:Why not in English? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 9 months ago | (#45929109)

Uh, if you're doing it for the million dollars, then your priorities are fucked up. Luckily those who work seriously on the problem often have the right priorities, and those that have the wrong priorities are often delusional wankers. So it's an easy classification problem.

Re:Why not in English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927487)

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?

Re:Why not in English? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927539)

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:Why not in English? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 9 months ago | (#45927565)

The mere fact that you wrote this post in English answers that question.

Re:Why not in English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927635)

Kirillitsa ne podderzhivayetsya

Alex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927991)

Try:
http://translit.ru

Re:Why not in English? (1)

tgv (254536) | about 9 months ago | (#45928469)

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:Why not in English? (0)

jd (1658) | about 9 months ago | (#45927663)

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 exist in the language. It is fit for purpose.

So, no, there is nothing wrong with a paper in Russian. There won't be many American professors left who could read it, and for political reasons they would likely deny any such ability. Europeans are less extreme and more multicultural, but Russian has never been a particularly hot second language. Ok, more so than Old Icelandic, Akkadian or Finnish, but Babylon hasn't done much new maths in 5,000 years and Scandanavia only produces hot computer geeks, hot models and hot saunas.

Re:Why not in English? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927793)

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:Why not in English? (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 9 months ago | (#45928323)

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:Why not in English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45929267)

Nye ponemayu paruski. Sto ete ? Kak rabotet ?

Re:Why not in English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927523)

You are right. The English speaking part of the world could need the education this paper would provide so they have a chance to win the remaining prizes.

Re:Why not in English? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 9 months ago | (#45927577)

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:Why not in English? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927673)

Math papers look prettier when you combine so many alphabets, it feels more like art (incomprehensible art). You get cyrillic (including cursive [wikipedia.org] ), greek leters in formulae, and some latin here and there. That's original, I like it.

Re:Why not in English? (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 9 months ago | (#45928341)

Yes. It should be in English, because that's the language I speak.

Very new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927147)

This must be very new or very crackpot. There are no posts on mathoverflow about it.

Re:Very new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927265)

This must be very new or very crackpot. There are no posts on mathoverflow about it.

I think it's safe to say "it is very very crackpot".

Conspiracy (1)

Oysterville (2944937) | about 9 months ago | (#45927203)

Great, like the college text books need another reason to come out with a re-write for next year.

Re:Conspiracy (2)

katterjohn (726348) | about 9 months ago | (#45927227)

At least they'd have a good reason this time.

Re:Conspiracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927387)

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:Conspiracy (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 9 months ago | (#45928063)

All this code approximates, or partially solves, Navier-Stokes for different special cases, because we don't have the computational power to do otherwise.

Re:Conspiracy (3, Informative)

MickLinux (579158) | about 9 months ago | (#45928983)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928331)

A solution to the millenium prize probably wouldn't change much here. The prize is only to prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions, not to find them explicitly. While the techniques discovered may give insight into building new numerical solvers, it's not possible that you'll get a closed form, analytic solution to the Navier-Stokes equations that eliminates the need for numerical solvers.

Re:Conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928673)

It is even possible to get an analytic solution to something, and stick with numeric approximations if they are fast enough and you are going to be limited by machine precision anyway.

Re:Conspiracy (3, Informative)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | about 9 months ago | (#45928479)

You're very wrong on all points I'm afraid. This will have zero impact on any CFD codes. And where did you get the (slightly ridiculous) idea that CFD programs only solve for special cases? It's true that most restrict themselves in some way, e.g. "subsonic and non-turbulent", but otherwise they are completely general. Source: my PhD work consists of writing a CFD code for Navier-Stokes. (The summary talking about rewriting textbooks is also way off on their understanding. This will likely be incomprehensible without a PhD in the right area of mathematics.)

His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (3, Interesting)

Frans Faase (648933) | about 9 months ago | (#45927209)

In his bio [otelbaev.com] it is claimed that he found explicit formulas for n-particle motion in the space (in the framework of Einstein’s relativity theory). If that would be true, I guess it would have be known in the rest of the world as well, if he had.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (2)

impossiblefork (978205) | about 9 months ago | (#45927861)

While it's probably hard mathematics I do not think that finding a bunch of explicit solutions to such problems is likely to be all that novel.

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 (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | about 9 months ago | (#45927875)

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:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (1)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | about 9 months ago | (#45928507)

Holographic: I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (1)

jd (1658) | about 9 months ago | (#45928597)

I understand the Holographic Universe theory perfectly well. And nothing can excuse Princess Bride Memeology. Now gerroff my lawn!

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 9 months ago | (#45928581)

Wow, my Saturday math lesson. Thanks.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (1)

jd (1658) | about 9 months ago | (#45928617)

Maths and philosophy are directly interchangeable. This is why camels are so confused.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928989)

That post was about as educational as Saturday morning cartoons... remember, don't do drugs.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928695)

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 particular stable states with closed-form solutions, it's just that they're, well, particular.

The rest of your post has too much random noise to be worth discussing, sorry.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (1)

jd (1658) | about 9 months ago | (#45928861)

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:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (2)

MickLinux (579158) | about 9 months ago | (#45929073)

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:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45929321)

you are more concerned with being pompous than with comprehending what it is you are being pompous about.

Maybe you should lead by example then, instead of just accusing people of lacking reading comprehension.

Let's mod up things that use big words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928767)

Sorry, but while there are some bits and pieces in this comment that are not far from the mark, large parts of it seem more like word salad and have little to do with the n-body problem.

The system isn't differentiable and you can't actually perform infinitesimal steps.

Did you mean to say the system is not integrable? You can setup a pretty straight forward differential equation for the setup, but getting an analytic solution in general is a different story. Analytically you can perform infinitesimal time steps, as that is the whole point of calculus. Numerically you can't, at least not in a straightforward way, but at that point you are obviously not going with an analytic solution anyway. Although there are other systems where you can guarantee to converge on the actual solution, but not relevant to the n-body problem in general.

A system being chaotic is not mutually exclusive with having exact, analytic solutions. The problem with such systems is that all paths the solutions take diverge exponentially, so no matter how small of an error you start out with, that error will become significant on some timescale. The issue with such systems is not the lack of known solutions, but the lack of perfect measurements, that we don't know exactly the starting state (and computers are unlikely to be able to represent it), so that error will grow fast. This is a tangent to the idea of the system having solutions though.

because you can do bugger all with infinite multiway recursion

It isn't even regular recursion, it is just simple iteration...

What you CAN do is flatten the universe into a 2D holographic model.

The n body problem is just a simple system of differential equations, either you find a solution (or approximate solution) to it or not. If you remove time from it, you will find constants of motion like any other dynamic system, without any need to invoke "holographic."

Alternatively, with time dilation, you can make infinitesimal time arbitrarily large.

By definition, an infinitesimal number can't be made non-infinitesimal by just multiplying by some other finite number. Time dilation isn't going to fix this at all.

Re:Let's mod up things that use big words... (0)

jd (1658) | about 9 months ago | (#45928955)

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 am not sure I believe the theory either), but I am convinced he does and that he believes he has. There is only one path he could have taken to reach such a belief. Ergo, that is the path he took.

It should be obvious to even the smallest child that if approach X is doomed to failure, that the professor did not follow approach X. He did something else. It should also be obvious that, with the plethora of Holographic Universe papers on arXiv, along with papers on reduced-dimension n-body problem papers, that reduced-dimension approaches to problems has gained traction. But you're too busy complaining about terms you know nothing of to actually look at what people are doing. Way too busy.

So stop posting gibberish, read for once in your life, and maybe - just maybe - you will grasp what others are saying before you start spewing. God, how I hate it when lazy, incompetent bastards start thinking they know everything.

Re:Let's mod up things that use big words... (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 9 months ago | (#45929075)

Mate, you're skirting dangerously into crackpot territory. Quoting James Gleick as a scientific authority is demented. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're on thin ice. I'll assume that you have a specific form of differentiability with respect to a particular set of parameters in mind, which you didn't detail to us. Certainly, you're not helping yourself with statements such as "obvious to even the smallest child", "read for once in your life" etc.

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928927)

What you CAN do is flatten the universe into a 2D holographic model

If you can get it into a 2D problem, it would no longer be chaotic as 2D continuous problems can't be chaotic due to the Poincaré–Bendixson theorem. The results of which then can't be relevant or particular useful to determining the orbit of the original system if it doesn't display chaos. Doesn't matter, as the 3 body problem for example in general is inherently a 6 dimension equation (if using second order equations with 3 coordinates for each body, minus three for the constraints of having a fixed center of mass).

Re:His bio: Solution for n-particle problem (2)

MickLinux (579158) | about 9 months ago | (#45929063)

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 have done it in the 50s, and his paper describes another such historical event. In both cases, the solution was not published, but the results were, and show the hallmarks of the method.

Eurasian National University (2)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about 9 months ago | (#45927263)

Eurasian National University?
I thought 1984 was fiction...

Not a crazy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Grisha Perelman was also working on Navier-Stokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927327)

Allegedly, anyway.

Re:Grisha Perelman was also working on Navier-Stok (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 9 months ago | (#45928413)

That's a bit passive aggressive. Becoming a mathematics genius Just so you can solve Millenium problems and then refuse the prize money.

Is slashdot viable ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927423)

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I've been wondering for a few years: given that you can post anonymously (meaning, unlike Facebook, I'm not the product that you sell to .. ? ) and that there are no ads, how is slashdot even viable ? Does it generate revenue thanks to the links ? Do the linked websites share some revenue with Slashdot ?

Re:Is slashdot viable ? (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 9 months ago | (#45927579)

It has been up and running for over 15 years. Is there some problem?

Re:Is slashdot viable ? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 9 months ago | (#45928113)

He just wanted to know the revenue model. Even the concept of car has been working for over 100 years and still people ask the question "how does a car work?".

Re:Is slashdot viable ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927677)

There are ads, for non-signed-in, non-adblocking users (which, presumably, contains large numbers of gullible and under-informed readers who are the ideal target market for advertising). Allowing active readers/posters, who are smart enough to block ads anyway, to operate ad-free provides Slashdot with a huge amount of free material to attract page hits by advertising viewers (thus money from the ads) --- with near zero cost or effort for in-house journalistic/editorial work. If you're not seeing ads, but you're making posts, then you are the product being sold to the ad-reading viewers who are being sold to the advertisers.

Re:Is slashdot viable ? (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 9 months ago | (#45928383)

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.

a triumph of.. (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 9 months ago | (#45927509)

...mathematics, but real fluids are compressible, viscous and varying properties. Let's see how far his approach extends and how closed the answers are. Fluid mechanics text book publishers will probably give him a few paragraph boxes or pages for history and theoretical stuff. Then back to the classic stuff.

You can solve minor physics problems starting in their relavistic form, but most engineers still use Newtonian physics.

Re:a triumph of.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927569)

...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.

Re:a triumph of.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45927637)

You could, but do you?

Why use the word "Claim" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:Why use the word "Claim" (2, Insightful)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:Why use the word "Claim" (1)

glwtta (532858) | about 9 months ago | (#45928823)

Hard to say, I guess we'll find out what wording Slashdot chooses to use when a Westerner solves a Millennium Prize Problem?

Eurasian? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#45928069)

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/ the Asiatic countries nearest them - Iran, Turkey or any of the Arab countries south of them. Azerbaijan is tightly connected to both Iran & Turkey, and so are the 'stans'. As a result, all 6 of those countries are Asiatic countries, as opposed to 'Eurasian' or 'European'. Why are they so reluctant to admit it?

Re:Eurasian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928181)

F in geography?

Re:Eurasian? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45928661)

Look mommy, I did a Google [wikipedia.org] .

Was your post plain ignorance or a bit of bigotry? I can't quite tell.

Re:Eurasian? (2)

oldhack (1037484) | about 9 months ago | (#45928663)

Shut the fuck up. Europe isn't even a real continent anyways.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?