Critical analysis reveals lack of valid mathematical proofs in preprint claims regarding P versus NP and Navier–Stokes equations, highlighting the necessity of rigorous peer review.
FINDING: No new mathematical solution is presented in these sources; they are popular expositions and one unverified arXiv claim. The only substantive item is a self-published treatise claiming solutions to P vs NP (3rd) and Navier–Stokes (4th) — but with no peer review or accepted proof. | MATH: No new equations, constants, or ratios are extracted from the videos. The arXiv paper (1902.07265v23) claims solutions but provides no verifiable closed-form or invariant in the abstract. | CONNECTION: None found. No occurrence of 0.382, 0.618, 0.786, 1.618, 2.618, base-60, or crystallographic symmetry in any source. | DEPTH: 1 — These are summaries and a single unverified claim; no mathematical essence to extract. The "AI solves ten problems" video is commentary, not a proof. Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrew Stewart Caldin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: