Prev: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #178; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: THE CANTOR ARGUMENT SO FAR
From: JSH on 19 Jun 2010 17:50
Confident people can be VERY convincing, and over the years I've more
than once ran into the issue of, if so many people say you're wrong,
how can you be right? And that has bugged me as well, which goes to
the real reason I talked a lot about Google searches.

Sure I can put forward a mathematical argument and say I'm right, say
I've traced it out carefully and that in reply a poster just deleted
it all out, or simply refuses to address the actual argument and
instead changes the subject or just makes false statements, but it can
still seem like just one person's word against another's, and the
crowd has the greater impact.

And one thing I've noticed over the years is that a group of maybe
even only 6 posters will post with a lot of energy in reply to a
person and will often use phrases like "everyone disagrees with you"
or "no one likes you", or global statements to that effect as clearly
they understand the power of presenting a situation that supposedly is
about one person refusing to accept the truth from a large number of
people.

So Google searches are this unique way to watch their behavior with
something much bigger than they are!

Intriguingly though they simply demeaned Google.

Suddenly according to them, Google searches were "meaningless", and
getting high search rankings was a trivial thing that anyone could do,
though I don't put "anyone" in quotes as that at least isn't something
I've seen actually stated.

Oh, and in facing high country counts of hits to my math blog as
reported to Google Analytics, some might simply claim I was lying
about them, while one poster confidently proclaimed the hits to be
robot programs and forcefully argued that point.

One exercise for people contemplating the actual difficulty of
something is to imagine doing it themselves, where Google is global
enough that you can just go do searches on your own activities, or
your ideas, or imagine putting an idea out there and seeing where it
ranks.

Amazingly enough with that exercise you may only then be able to
contemplate the feat of my having the definition of mathematical
proof, by imagining doing it yourself.

So think of sitting down, writing up your own personal definition of
mathematical proof--you can actually try this exercise if you wish--
putting it out there, and taking over the #1 spot over much of the
world, beating dictionaries, MathWorld, and the Wikipedia.

Now do the search in Google (has to be Google): definition of
mathematical proof

For me it was surreal when I finally realized I was getting highly
ranked for that definition and I learned it from search strings people
were using to get to my math blog (um, I have a LOT of data from
multiple sources).

Confidence oozing from posters can be mistaken for skill.

Readers can believe that no one would actually just stalk another
person claiming they're wrong without having factual or mathematical
basis, but I have watched that behavior for years. Confidence does
not mean a person is right. Personally I don't trust confidence with
mathematics and prefer when someone is honest about worries about a
particular mathematical argument. Or concerns that they missed
something, or are just plain wrong!

But human nature is to TRUST confidence. So my own admissions of
error rather than helping me, are used by confident posters to
reinforce the notion that I must be wrong.

It IS a competitive world.

And to me it has been amazing watching posters claim otherwise, as if
anyone can have the definition of mathematical proof in Google, or
"everyone" can have hits from 120+ countries on a yearly basis to
their blog, if they just want it or something? I guess?

But at the end of it all of course the ultimate refuge for readers is
the realization that it's really about mainstream mathematicians
acknowledging or not acknowledging important mathematical research
anyway, so why would I need to talk about Google search results if I
were actually right?

Because the Internet as the new thing seems to be upending an old
guard which has been informed of a massive error within number theory,
which they may see as more easily ignored than addressed.

Google: algebraic integers vs complex numbers

If you even imagine that the ring of algebraic integers conflicts with
the field of complex numbers you realize it's a defunct ring, but it's
such a huge thing, and then for supposedly top mathematicians to
pretend the problem doesn't exist?

How is such a thing possible?

Well as BP continues to try and stop an oil spill. And as the world
continues to try and recover from a near financial collapse. And
while the Catholic Church has to keep addressing issues of pedophile
priests, it's not so hard to understand.

Judging difficulty can guide you well here. I note things all the
time which indicate some measure by which you can consider, and when
posters in reply will say that Google gives worthless search rankings--
because I rank highly--then it's time to re-think confidence in the
crowd and confidence in people who say such things with total
confidence.

The math world will eventually confront its major problem, I'm sure.
My confidence in that regard though is something I ponder myself, as
the years have gone by, but the results from the Internet are telling
in my opinion.

Such a massive problem requires massive forces to correct it.

It may not have been correctable without the age of the Internet given
the resistance that is STILL being shown!!!

So this problem may have waited for the evolution of the Internet to
be solved.

These math professors will go about their business as best they can
until they are stopped. With Usenet posters fighting for them in
hostile posts that will go after anyone and anything to preserve the
error, even going after Google.

THAT is how difficult the situation is. Short answer: it's about as
hard as it could possibly get. A near impossible task.


James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 19 Jun 2010 18:17
On 19/06/2010 22:50, JSH wrote:
> Confident people can be VERY convincing, and over the years I've more
> than once ran into the issue of, if so many people say you're wrong,
> how can you be right? And that has bugged me as well, which goes to
> the real reason I talked a lot about Google searches.

Conspiracy, creative (re/mis)interpretation, whining.

Usual response when a JSH theory is demolished and JSH is in denial
over it.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Richard Henry on 19 Jun 2010 18:30
On Jun 19, 2:50 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Confident people can be VERY convincing, and over the years I've more
> than once ran into the issue of, if so many people say you're wrong,
> how can you be right?  And that has bugged me as well, which goes to
> the real reason I talked a lot about Google searches.
>
> Sure I can put forward a mathematical argument and say I'm right, say
> I've traced it out carefully and that in reply a poster just deleted
> it all out, or simply refuses to address the actual argument and
> instead changes the subject or just makes false statements, but it can
> still seem like just one person's word against another's, and the
> crowd has the greater impact.
>
> And one thing I've noticed over the years is that a group of maybe
> even only 6 posters will post with a lot of energy in reply to a
> person and will often use phrases like "everyone disagrees with you"
> or "no one likes you", or global statements to that effect as clearly
> they understand the power of presenting a situation that supposedly is
> about one person refusing to accept the truth from a large number of
> people.
>
> So Google searches are this unique way to watch their behavior with
> something much bigger than they are!
>
> Intriguingly though they simply demeaned Google.
>
> Suddenly according to them, Google searches were "meaningless", and
> getting high search rankings was a trivial thing that anyone could do,
> though I don't put "anyone" in quotes as that at least isn't something
> I've seen actually stated.
>
> Oh, and in facing high country counts of hits to my math blog as
> reported to Google Analytics, some might simply claim I was lying
> about them, while one poster confidently proclaimed the hits to be
> robot programs and forcefully argued that point.
>
> One exercise for people contemplating the actual difficulty of
> something is to imagine doing it themselves, where Google is global
> enough that you can just go do searches on your own activities, or
> your ideas, or imagine putting an idea out there and seeing where it
> ranks.
>
> Amazingly enough with that exercise you may only then be able to
> contemplate the feat of my having the definition of mathematical
> proof, by imagining doing it yourself.
>
> So think of sitting down, writing up your own personal definition of
> mathematical proof--you can actually try this exercise if you wish--
> putting it out there, and taking over the #1 spot over much of the
> world, beating dictionaries, MathWorld, and the Wikipedia.
>
> Now do the search in Google (has to be Google): definition of
> mathematical proof
>
> For me it was surreal when I finally realized I was getting highly
> ranked for that definition and I learned it from search strings people
> were using to get to my math blog (um, I have a LOT of data from
> multiple sources).
>
> Confidence oozing from posters can be mistaken for skill.
>
> Readers can believe that no one would actually just stalk another
> person claiming they're wrong without having factual or mathematical
> basis, but I have watched that behavior for years.  Confidence does
> not mean a person is right.  Personally I don't trust confidence with
> mathematics and prefer when someone is honest about worries about a
> particular mathematical argument.  Or concerns that they missed
> something, or are just plain wrong!
>
> But human nature is to TRUST confidence.  So my own admissions of
> error rather than helping me, are used by confident posters to
> reinforce the notion that I must be wrong.
>
> It IS a competitive world.
>
> And to me it has been amazing watching posters claim otherwise, as if
> anyone can have the definition of mathematical proof in Google, or
> "everyone" can have hits from 120+ countries on a yearly basis to
> their blog, if they just want it or something?  I guess?
>
> But at the end of it all of course the ultimate refuge for readers is
> the realization that it's really about mainstream mathematicians
> acknowledging or not acknowledging important mathematical research
> anyway, so why would I need to talk about Google search results if I
> were actually right?
>
> Because the Internet as the new thing seems to be upending an old
> guard which has been informed of a massive error within number theory,
> which they may see as more easily ignored than addressed.
>
> Google: algebraic integers vs complex numbers
>
> If you even imagine that the ring of algebraic integers conflicts with
> the field of complex numbers you realize it's a defunct ring, but it's
> such a huge thing, and then for supposedly top mathematicians to
> pretend the problem doesn't exist?
>
> How is such a thing possible?
>
> Well as BP continues to try and stop an oil spill.  And as the world
> continues to try and recover from a near financial collapse.  And
> while the Catholic Church has to keep addressing issues of pedophile
> priests, it's not so hard to understand.
>
> Judging difficulty can guide you well here.  I note things all the
> time which indicate some measure by which you can consider, and when
> posters in reply will say that Google gives worthless search rankings--
> because I rank highly--then it's time to re-think confidence in the
> crowd and confidence in people who say such things with total
> confidence.
>
> The math world will eventually confront its major problem, I'm sure.
> My confidence in that regard though is something I ponder myself, as
> the years have gone by, but the results from the Internet are telling
> in my opinion.
>
> Such a massive problem requires massive forces to correct it.
>
> It may not have been correctable without the age of the Internet given
> the resistance that is STILL being shown!!!
>
> So this problem may have waited for the evolution of the Internet to
> be solved.
>
> These math professors will go about their business as best they can
> until they are stopped.  With Usenet posters fighting for them in
> hostile posts that will go after anyone and anything to preserve the
> error, even going after Google.
>
> THAT is how difficult the situation is.  Short answer: it's about as
> hard as it could possibly get.  A near impossible task.
>
> James Harris

Nobody likes you.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 19 Jun 2010 20:49
On 06/19/2010 05:50 PM, JSH wrote:
> Amazingly enough with that exercise you may only then be able to
> contemplate the feat of my having the definition of mathematical
> proof, by imagining doing it yourself.

One skill often taught in English courses, when doing research, is the
skill of critical analysis of the sources. Wikipedia (when work is cited
as having references), Mathworld, and dictionaries tend to be regarded
as reliable resources. Blogs are generally cited as a prime example of
resources that are not reliable. Even if a search result comes up #1 on
Google, I don't click on it if I can find a more reliable result (e.g.,
Wikipedia or Mathworld) on the same page.

> Now do the search in Google (has to be Google): definition of
> mathematical proof

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.

> But human nature is to TRUST confidence. So my own admissions of
> error rather than helping me, are used by confident posters to
> reinforce the notion that I must be wrong.

I don't trust confidence. I have been burned on results that I was
confident would happen before, so I tend to have adopted a more
pessimistic outlook on life. You also get the nice feeling of knowing
that you beat your pessimistic goals (even if you wonder how exactly you
managed to pull that off).

> And to me it has been amazing watching posters claim otherwise, as if
> anyone can have the definition of mathematical proof in Google, or
> "everyone" can have hits from 120+ countries on a yearly basis to
> their blog, if they just want it or something? I guess?

Do you have any basis of comparison? I have presented evidence that
achieving 60 countries over a year is probably normal for any site.

> If you even imagine that the ring of algebraic integers conflicts with
> the field of complex numbers you realize it's a defunct ring, but it's
> such a huge thing, and then for supposedly top mathematicians to
> pretend the problem doesn't exist?
>
> How is such a thing possible?

Occam's Razor states, roughly, that the simplest possible hypothesis
should be chosen as the assumed one when multiple hypotheses exist that
can all explain what happens. Following this maxim, a result which
supposedly overturns a large body of mathematics derived by someone who
is--by his own admission--not an experienced mathematician is more
likely to be wrong than to be covered up in a large conspiracy trying to
suppress the result for their own meager benefits.

Alternatively, to misquote another saying, never attribute to a
complicated widespread conspiracy what can be explained by ignorance.

> Well as BP continues to try and stop an oil spill. And as the world
> continues to try and recover from a near financial collapse. And
> while the Catholic Church has to keep addressing issues of pedophile
> priests, it's not so hard to understand.

Those are completely different things. In BP's case, it's an
underestimation of what is actually possible. The world has recovered
from the initial asset bubble burst (although there is the possibility
of a sovereign debt crisis as well as emerging market asset bubbles as a
result of emerging markets trying to import the monetary policy of
wealthier countries by maintaining currency pegs).

> Judging difficulty can guide you well here. I note things all the
> time which indicate some measure by which you can consider, and when
> posters in reply will say that Google gives worthless search rankings--
> because I rank highly--then it's time to re-think confidence in the
> crowd and confidence in people who say such things with total
> confidence.

I don't think Google gives worthless rankings *because* you rank highly.
I just think that it gives bad rankings all around.

> It may not have been correctable without the age of the Internet given
> the resistance that is STILL being shown!!!

Why not assume the more likely scenario, that your result is wrong? As I
said, a massive conspiracy cannot sustain itself, so the suppression of
a result may just be more likely due to the fact that the result is
wrong. And you're not the first to be able to claim to do something that
is known to be impossible. Just look up "squaring the circle" and similar.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: JSH on 19 Jun 2010 21:53
On Jun 19, 5:49 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/19/2010 05:50 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > Amazingly enough with that exercise you may only then be able to
> > contemplate the feat of my having the definition of mathematical
> > proof, by imagining doing it yourself.
>
> One skill often taught in English courses, when doing research, is the
> skill of critical analysis of the sources. Wikipedia (when work is cited
> as having references), Mathworld, and dictionaries tend to be regarded
> as reliable resources. Blogs are generally cited as a prime example of
> resources that are not reliable. Even if a search result comes up #1 on
> Google, I don't click on it if I can find a more reliable result (e.g.,
> Wikipedia or Mathworld) on the same page.
>
> > Now do the search in Google (has to be Google): definition of
> > mathematical proof
>
> 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.

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

(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.)

Do you think Google and I are buddies or something?

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

It appears to be there over most countries in the world as well.

What's your explanation?

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?


James Harris
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #178; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: THE CANTOR ARGUMENT SO FAR