Why don't you solve them?
i saw how grigori was treated for solving one. juice ain't worth the squeeze. i've made significant unpublished contribution to the navier stokes millennium prize problem. unpublished because i'm a physicist who focuses on application and not the faggy math autismo version
>>17010081because the contextual framing is absolute nonsense>break all cryprography forever, tell us how, and $1,000,000
>>17010081they're useless waste of time. Solving poincare had zero practical benefit
>>17010081I dont have a million dollars
>>17010081A bunch of mathematicians with AI are proving Navier Stokes
Because obsessing with big conjetures is bad practice in mathematics. >There's no significant news from here, as always. Martin is appointing John Nash to an Assistant Professorship (not the Nash at Illinois, the one out of Princeton by Steenrod) and I'm pretty annoyed at that. Nash is a childish bright guy who wants to be "basically original," which I suppose is fine for those who have some basic originality in them. He also makes a damned fool of himself in various ways contrary to this philosophy. He recently heard of the unsolved problem about imbedding a Riemannian manifold isometrically in Euclidean space, felt that this was his sort of thing, provided the problem were sufficiently worthwhile to justify his efforts; so he proceeded to write to everyone in the math society to check on that, was told that it probably was, and proceeded to announce that he had solved it, modulo details, and told Mackey he would like to talk about it at the Harvard colloquium. Meanwhile he went to Levinson to inquire about a differential equation that intervened and Levinson says it is a system of partial differential equations and if he could only [get] to the essentially simpler analog of a single ordinary differential equation it would be a damned good paper - and Nash had only the vaguest notions about the whole thing. So it is generally conceded he is getting nowhere and making an even bigger ass of himself than he has been previously supposed by those with less insight than myself. But we've got him and saved ourselves the possibility of having gotten a real mathematician. He's a bright guy but conceited as Hell, childish as Wiener, hasty as X, obstreperous as Y, for arbitrary X and Y.
>>17010084>i saw how grigori was treated for solving one. juice ain't worth the squeeze.Ah yes, you're not going to solve a millennium problem because people will treat you badly, and not because you're a brainlet who will never solve one of these in the first place.>i've made significant unpublished contribution to the navier stokes millennium prize problem.Why lie on the internet like that?
>>17010278Obsessing over big conjectures is only a bad idea if you can't solve them in a reasonable amount of time
>>17010284Show us a good ending
>>17010081Because you have to commit at least several years minimum to even begin to understand thw basic literature and maybe what has been tried before. Then you have to hope you actually have a good idea that's actually unique when experts in the field have spent decades trying to think of a solution. It's also very likely you/others still need to write another dozen papers before you have the machinery to write a proof.
>>17010285>Nash>Wiles>Perelman>Zhang
>>17010081unsolvable using our shit math and miggers wont accept any solution that doesnt use their shit system
>>17010282schizophrenia and delusions of grandeur
>>17010299InstitutionalizedBBC scriptedSchizo poorstill a Zhang
>>17010320It is rather odd how despite modern mathematics being so complex it hasn't solved any of these problems. Like one could go on Arxiv and easily find a paper for which 99.9% of people could never even hope to fully understand, like the on the Langlands program, and yet even this is not enough to solve any of these problems or even begin to approach a solution.Why? Did the Jews win?
