Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recent news post that Mukhtarbai Otelbayev from Eurasian National University has shown existence of strong solutions of the Navier-Stokes equation in the article

"Existence of a strong solution of the Navier-Stokes equations"

which shall already be published in a Russian journal. It's also claimed that that paper solves the respective Clay Millenium Problem. Given that the paper is in Russian and I haven't heard about the author and the journal, I am curios if somebody can shed some light on the issue. Has Otelbayev found some genuinely new approach to Navier-Stokes?

Remark 1: There is already some discussion going on at several other places on the internet and I am aware that it has been discussed (e.g. here) if questions of this type are suitable here, but I thought that MO would generate most reliable answers quickly and would be a good place to keep relevant information.

Remark 2: User myw01 from math.stackexchange has started an english translation of the article on github. To me as a layman in Navier-Stokes it starts out reasonable…

Remark 3: As Sam Hopkins noted in a comment below, Terry Tao just published the preprint "Finite time blowup for an averaged three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation" which indicates that a positive solution of global existence of Navier-Stokes equations is "improbable" and also proposes a program for adapting approach laid out in the paper to the true Navier-Stokes equations.

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by Will Jagy, Ian Agol, Andy Putman, Andres Caicedo, David Roberts Jan 13 '14 at 23:29

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

«To me as a layman in Navier-Stokes it starts out...» is a rather bad way to start an evaluation of work in such a delicate subject! –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 13 '14 at 20:10
@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez Granted… But actually the english translation is not very far yet and ends before analysis starts. The introduction seems to be ok in that it cites relevant literature. I just added the respective remark to i) draw attention to the translation project and ii) to indicate that it is not obviously nonsense. –  Dirk Jan 13 '14 at 20:40
Relevant meta threads: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/927/… meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1263/… The consensus seems to be that questions about the correctness of a specific paper are not desired here. –  Nate Eldredge Jan 13 '14 at 20:52
I strongly think that MO is not an appropriate place to vet solutions of famous open problems. As far as this one goes, people claim such things all the time, and 99.999% of them fall apart. It's not worth getting excited by yet another one. And the fact that this rumor was spread by a press release makes it sound fishier still. –  Andy Putman Jan 13 '14 at 21:16
It's probably worth adding a reference to a recent post of Terence Tao that asserts that "abstract" solutions to the Navier-Stokes problem are bound to fail: terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/… –  Sam Hopkins Feb 4 '14 at 17:16