OpenAI's Navier-Stokes proof sparks debate: would an anonymous 500k-line proof even be verified?
kareem_carr · x · 2026-09-13
A dispute over OpenAI's Navier-Stokes mathematical proof has turned into a debate about trust in mathematics.
- @skdh's critique: had the proof been posted anonymously by an unknown introverted mathematician, people would be celebrating it as a breakthrough and analyzing it — instead of writing 'the demise of maths' takes. The community, he argues, judges by authorship rather than content.
- @kareemcarr counters: if a human-authored proof were half a million lines of poorly organized text with zero intuition for why it should be correct, nobody would invest the time to verify it — we wouldn't even know it was valid, let alone celebrate it. The proof's readability and verifiability are the real issue, not just its provenance.
The core tension: verifying very long AI-generated proofs vs. the intuition- and trust-based structure of traditional mathematical peer review.
Related event: OpenAI's Navier-Stokes Proof Sparks Debate Over Trust in Mathematics(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Commenters praise Altman, Dario and Musk for admitting they're not fully in control of AI — JOBhakdi · 2026-09-13
- Dario calls for frontier pacing, but Anthropic reportedly hasn't slowed its own RL — koltregaskes · 2026-09-13
- VC: You can't get hired at a frontier lab without believing AI could kill us all — StewartalsopIII · 2026-09-13
- Did OpenAI just crack Navier–Stokes? AI agents produced a Lean-formalized singularity proof — erdematar · 2026-09-13
- Prof warns students now use 5 AI prompts to polish 2-line emails, a 'cognitive surrender' — paulnovosad · 2026-09-13
- AI researcher: extra brain compute exists to make general-purpose agents, not specialists — chris_j_paxton · 2026-09-13