Prev: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #178; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: THE CANTOR ARGUMENT SO FAR
From: Mark Murray on 20 Jun 2010 05:10
On 20/06/2010 02:53, JSH wrote:
>> Again, I understand why you're couching that it has to be Google.
>> Unfortunately, seeing as you are publishing on a Google service, the
>> reliability of the result is called into immediate question.
>
> Which is an assertion of bias against Google.

Correct.

> But why would they bother to put my definition of mathematical proof
> above the Wikipedia?

Because it serves them to serve their own traffic over that of
competitors'?

> (My competition with the Wikipedia is fierce. For define mathematical
> proof they took over the #1 spot, pushing me down to #3, but for some
> reason I still have definition of mathematical proof. That battle may
> shift at times, as people change the Wikipedia article. My blog post
> remains the same.)

Wikepedia doesn't give a damn about you. If your definition was of use,
they would have cited it. Where they stand in rankings with you is of
no consequence to them. "Mathematical proof" is one of millions of
articles they have; do you really think they are involved in some petty
ranking war with an amateur with a history of unchecked results? Don't
flatter yourself.

> Do you think Google and I are buddies or something?

No. But you are Google-hosted. I'd be more impressed if the search
results were similar on other search engines, but for this to really
mean something, I'd want to see evidence of actual human concensus,
not something implied from a biased statistic.

> How hard do you think it is to achieve that ranking for the definition
> of mathematical proof?

Not hard. It has been pointed out MANY times to you that careful
selection of terms can manipulate search rankings. This is BIG business
amongst advertisers.

> It appears to be there over most countries in the world as well.
>
> What's your explanation?

The explanation has been provided on numerous occaisions. You've
simply dismissed or ignored it each time.

> Do you believe we live in a competitive world? Do you think if you
> *really* tried you might write your own definition of mathematical
> proof and take over that #1 ranking from me?

Yes, trivially. And folks have already shown that hitting #1 is easy AND
YOU HAVE NOTICED THIS. Soon after, you appear to forget and go back to
the same argument.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #178; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: THE CANTOR ARGUMENT SO FAR