Easier said than explained, the equations describe how fluids \u2014 including gases and liquids \u2014 move and change over time. As equations do, they give us a way to try to predict what will happen if you plug in the variables. The issue \u2014 and why this is one of the famed Millennium Prize Problems that come with a million-dollar award<\/a> if a solution is verified \u2014 is not knowing exactly whether the math can blow up and produce physically impossible results.\u00a0<\/p>\n “It’s a very deep mystery,” said Ravi Vakil, mathematics professor at Stanford University. “It seems this huge thing that’s out of reach, like this mountain you see in the distance, and the question is: can we get there?”<\/p>\n Vakil says it’s a way to understand the universe and whether it works the way we think it does. The problem with Navier-Stokes is kind of like saying you can know everything about your foot, your shoe and a ball \u2014 but there’s no ruling out you can kick that ball into space.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cross Country Checkup is asking:\u00a0What questions do you have about potential AI threats, and what should be done about them? \u00a0Leave your comment\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and we may read it or call you back\u00a0for Sunday’s show<\/p>\n So “resolving” the problem is about figuring out whether this breakdown can happen. OpenAI says yes: in a certain circumstance, you can get a bonkers, physics-violating result \u2014 at least, on paper.\u00a0<\/p>\n Moreover, the task “involved on the order of 10,000 concurrent agents” \u2014 AI that can perform tasks independently and doesn’t need to be prompted constantly \u2014 that “had access to tools such as the ability to read from a cached version of the internet and the ability to run code.”\u00a0<\/p>\n Within 88 hours, the company said, its agents had found the solution to this problem, which has roots going back more than 200 years. It’s worth mentioning that while this problem is a curiosity, the equations are used for practical applications including the design of airplanes, artificial heart valves and climate modelling.<\/p>\n Vakil isn’t surprised the company was able to achieve it, but is still impressed, though he and other experts point out that the claim now needs to be rigorously verified.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n “No one is yet ready to fully vouch for all the details because that requires human time,” Vakil, who is originally from Toronto, told CBC News from Stanford, California.\u00a0<\/p>\n “It passes machine checks, but we know better than to believe those.”\u00a0<\/p>\n WATCH | AI factors into lower scores for students: Experts blame AI, screens for slipping Canadian student test scores<\/p>\n While Canadian students still perform well globally in math, science and reading, scores have dipped significantly in recent years. Some educational experts blame the rising overuse of AI and too much screen time.The counterclaim<\/p>\n The controversy began before OpenAI announced its findings and involved two other mathematicians, Tristan Buckmaster of New York University and Levent Alp\u00f6ge, who works for OpenAI competitor Anthropic.\u00a0<\/p>\n Among other things, Buckmaster \u2014 who used AI tools such as Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s Codex \u2014 suggested<\/a> OpenAI learned the pair were close to a solution and pursued it themselves. He alleged OpenAI tried to offer him credit so long as Alp\u00f6ge’s name wasn’t on it because he works for a competing AI company.\u00a0<\/p>\n At the time, he said he didn’t get a response when he asked if OpenAI’s agents had been able to see his own use of its Codex tool before coming up with their solution.\u00a0<\/p>\n OpenAI acknowledges pursuing the solution after hearing rumours of a potential solution. But it denies its internal system of agents learned from their work<\/a>, saying after an investigation, it “confirmed that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts \u2026 could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training.”\u00a0<\/p>\n To Davide Gaiotto, who specializes in theoretical and mathematical physics at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ont., it’s the modern version of an age-old problem. He uses an example of a professional seminar where you hear about upcoming research.\u00a0<\/p>\n “Normally, this would require you to be so fast and capable that you can see what they told you at the seminar and use it to do the final step,” Gaiotto said. But now, it may soon be possible to use AI tools to leap faster and farther off those giants’ shoulders, so to speak.\u00a0<\/p>\n WATCH | The next wave of AI doesn’t need you to prompt it: AI agents could change how you use the internet <\/p>\n OpenAI and other big tech companies are starting to roll out the next wave of artificial intelligence, designed to operate with more autonomy. CBC\u2019s Nora Young breaks down how agentic AI works and why some think it will change how you use the internet. <\/p>\n “Because if you have enough money, you can compress months of work into a few hours,” Gaiotto told CBC News.\u00a0<\/p>\n It’s worth noting that this Navier-Stokes work does not exist in a vacuum, and that Buckmaster credits Spanish researchers Diego C\u00f3rdoba from the Institute for Mathematical Sciences and CUNEF University’s Luis Mart\u00ednez-Zoroa for work on this approach.<\/p>\n The drama, Vakil says, is unfortunate and overshadows the real human accomplishment.\u00a0<\/p>\n “These are things that people have been chasing for a hundred years that we didn’t think would be within reach,” Vakil said, “And it’s this sequence of people assisted by technology that made something new happen.”\u00a0<\/p>\n Quick math<\/p>\n Buckmaster, in his Sept. 7 statement, said his original intent was to show “the significance that a mathematician and an LLM model can now do all this work in a month.”\u00a0<\/p>\n Vakil agrees that these tools are changing the game.\u00a0<\/p>\n “I do believe that it’s clear we’re going through a massive transition in how we do science. And we are among the first mathematicians.”<\/p>\n Not everyone is happy with that transition. At least 25 winners of the Fields Medal, one of mathematics’ most prestigious awards, signed an open letter<\/a> saying that AI is “misaligned” with the goals of the mathematical community and a “general threat to intellectual work.”\u00a0<\/p>\n But the furor over the tools to help answer deep questions perhaps misses a point made by Fields Medal-winning UCLA mathematician Terence Tao: Pure math is driven by curiosity.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"Water](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789266135_989_default.jpg\")
The Navier-Stokes equations deal with predicting the behaviour of fluids. (Ben Margot\/The Associated Press)<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789266135_506_default.jpg\")
OpenAI says this 3D model of a vortex visually describes how the equations can lead to a ‘breakdown.’ (OpenAI)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789266136_328_default.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789266137_741_default.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789266138_48_default.jpg\")
Terence Tao, seen here in November 2014, is among the notable academics calling for better solutions around AI and mathematics. (Steve Jennings\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n