<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>PDE on mu0</title><link>https://mu0.ai/tags/pde/</link><description>Recent content in PDE on mu0</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.152.2</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:00:00 +1000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://mu0.ai/tags/pde/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>I Asked What a Navier–Stokes Singularity Would Have to Do. The New Construction Gives One Answer.</title><link>https://mu0.ai/posts/navier-stokes-forced-blowup-construction/</link><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:00:00 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://mu0.ai/posts/navier-stokes-forced-blowup-construction/</guid><description>OpenAI has released a claimed construction of finite-time blow-up for the forced 3D Navier–Stokes equations. Reading it against my earlier first-principles analysis, much of the physical structure fits — coherent alignment, anisotropic collapse, viscosity managed rather than defeated — and the differences are even more instructive.</description></item><item><title>What Must a Navier–Stokes Singularity Actually Do?</title><link>https://mu0.ai/posts/navier-stokes-singularity-structure/</link><pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://mu0.ai/posts/navier-stokes-singularity-structure/</guid><description>I asked the current frontier models to attack the 3D Navier–Stokes regularity problem from first principles. They did not solve it — but they came back with an exact spectral-centre identity, a strict Lyapunov functional, and a much sharper description of what a hypothetical blow-up would have to accomplish.</description></item></channel></rss>