Timeline for turbulence as an unsolved problem of classical mechanics
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2016 at 13:45 | answer | added | Jean Duchon | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 5, 2010 at 13:48 | comment | added | Denis Serre | +1 for Scott's comment. Some mathematicians think that a system of equations in itself is the only meaningfull object and that solutions are just dirty ashes which try desperately to tie with it. I had, two decades ago, a useless discussion with a Field medalist, who did not believe in shock waves, because hydrodynamic-type systems of PDEs have too a nice structure. He just refused to face the real world. My credo: let us study the structure (algebraic, geometric, ...) of differential systems, not just for themselves, but because of their consequences on the Cauchy problem. | |
| Dec 3, 2010 at 15:35 | comment | added | Allen Knutson | The Clay Mathematics problem has an explicit, 4-page description by C. Fefferman of what sort of answer might win the $1M. claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/… | |
| Dec 3, 2010 at 12:58 | answer | added | Piero D'Ancona | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 3, 2010 at 10:15 | answer | added | Denis Serre | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 3, 2010 at 6:46 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | Short answer: Even if you have a system of equations that seem to model a system well, that does not mean you have a good understanding of the behavior of that system. The Navier-Stokes equations are one of the best examples of this discrepancy. | |
| Dec 3, 2010 at 6:16 | comment | added | Andrey Rekalo | I think your question is too broad. To answer it properly, one needs to write a book (or, at least, a survey article). Anyway, see a related MO question and the references provided in the answers mathoverflow.net/questions/27805/… | |
| Dec 3, 2010 at 5:46 | history | asked | user11284 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |