JSH: Authority from Google search results?
in [Theory]
|
From: Mark Murray on 29 Nov 2009 04:15 JSH wrote: > Do you actually believe I'm trying to convince you my research is > correct? Yes. Very desperately. > Why would I bother? Who are you? "You" is anyone who is not "James S Harris, the Amateur Mathematician". Why would you bother? Because you have an ego to feed, and it's supper-time. You (JSH) don't give a damn about individuals. Mass adoration is your goal. M
From: JSH on 29 Nov 2009 10:28 On Nov 28, 8:32 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 11/28/2009 10:18 PM, JSH wrote: > > > Your primary point now is that a SINGLE page because it was on a site > > that also contained pages you feel were wrong must itself be invalid, > > when it was a page linking to videos from news organizations, and came > > up #3, as it didn't even come up #1. The Wikipedia did. > > Honestly, when you view Google results, do you just look at the page it > linked to and only that page? No. You tend to click around the site, > especially if the information is more encyclopedic in nature. In > particular, in the context of the search, I did click through to see > more information--if I wanted an explanation of *how* the WTC towers > collapsed, that one page would have been rather useless and the other > pages somewhat useful (well, they did perpetuate a rather bogus and > inaccurate conspiracy theory, but that's beside the point). It's the > context of the page that counts, not the page itself. Except that becomes a judgement call you make. And regardless the #1 page is still the Wikipedia which you presumably are not attacking as a source. > > And maybe with one of those some individual person's definition trumps > > what is in the dictionaries. > > > In my case I have defined mathematical proof. > > Anyone can define mathematical proof, but there's no evidence (or, at Yup. > best, circumstantial evidence: nothing that would hold up per se in a > court of law) that your definition is any near the widespread use than, > say, the constructivist school thought. I never said it was. The question is, is it BETTER? > > Do you have any comparable competition? > > The USAF, which has an operating budget of approximately > $160,000,000,000, compared to Microsoft's operating expenses of > $ 38,000,000,000. The USAF? Please elaborate. And notice, when I say I'm competitive with Microsoft and beat them, that is something they would presumably notice. I don't care. I want them to come after Class Viewer and try to get their own Class Viewer higher in search rankings. THAT is competition. Now then, what have you convinced yourself is competitive with the USAF? Knowing that in so stating you are throwing down the gauntlet against their programmers? James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 29 Nov 2009 13:04 JSH wrote: > And notice, when I say I'm competitive with Microsoft and beat them, > that is something they would presumably notice. I don't care. I want > them to come after Class Viewer and try to get their own Class Viewer > higher in search rankings. Well, your "optimal path algorithm", you, know, the one one that was debunked, is second only to some guy named Dijkstra. > THAT is competition. Yup. Some competition. What are you going to do next? Come second to some guy named Euler? M
From: Jym on 29 Nov 2009 15:40 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:18:01 +0100, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In my case I have defined mathematical proof. As a matter of fact, before reading "A mathematical proof is a mathematical argument that begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true." I must say I kinda expected something more... revealing ? By the way, maybe you'd like to read "some guy named Descartes" and especially his "Discours de la m�thode" (http://descartes.free.fr/ in french, you'll probably find english translations in a couple of minutes) �2.7 to 2.10 seems pretty similar to your definition. You should probably sue him for plagiarism. Or the "Tr�sor Informatis� de la Langue fran�aise" (numerised treasure of the french language" which defines "d�mosntration" (proof), for the logical meaning of the word, by : "Raisonnement qui �tablit la v�rit� d'une proposition d�ductivement, c'est-�-dire en la rattachant par un lien n�cessaire � d'autres propositions admises comme vraies ou ant�rieurement d�montr�es" (reasonning which deductively establishes the truth of a proposition, that is proceeding by necessarily steps to other propositions admitted as true or previously prooved). Again, I find that one suspiciously close to your definition (excuse my poor translations skills). -- Hypocoristiquement, Jym.
From: JSH on 29 Nov 2009 18:51
On Nov 29, 12:40 pm, Jym <Jean-Yves.Moyen+n...(a)ens-lyon.org> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:18:01 +0100, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In my case I have defined mathematical proof. > > As a matter of fact, before reading > "A mathematical proof is a mathematical argument that begins with a truth > and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true." > I must say I kinda expected something more... revealing ? > > By the way, maybe you'd like to read "some guy named Descartes" and I have heard of him. > especially his "Discours de la méthode" (http://descartes.free.fr/in > french, you'll probably find english translations in a couple of minutes) > §2.7 to 2.10 seems pretty similar to your definition. You should probably My definition does not contradict prior ones. > sue him for plagiarism. > > Or the "Trésor Informatisé de la Langue française" (numerised treasure of > the french language" which defines "démosntration" (proof), for the > logical meaning of the word, by : > "Raisonnement qui établit la vérité d'une proposition déductivement, > c'est-à-dire en la rattachant par un lien nécessaire à d'autres > propositions admises comme vraies ou antérieurement démontrées" > (reasonning which deductively establishes the truth of a proposition, that > is proceeding by necessarily steps to other propositions admitted as true > or previously prooved). What is the definition of "deductively"? What is the definition of "truth of a proposition"? What is the definition of "previously proved"? > Again, I find that one suspiciously close to your definition (excuse my > poor translations skills). It's well established that mathematical proof is about using some argument and prior truths or axioms as they're usually called by math people in order to prove some conclusion. It's not the overall picture that's important here. It's the skill in boiling things down to only what matters. I would argue that "deductively" is at best redundant, at worse, at times is wrong--are all mathematical proofs deductive? And "truth of a proposition" seems vague. While "previously proved" seems to be circular. Not to knock Descartes but he died a long time ago. Humanity has learned a few things since his body turned to dust. James Harris |