JSH: Trying to be fair
in [Math]
|
Prev: Every Day More Physicists Are Coming Closer To The Truth About Gravity / S D Rodrian
Next: The closure of the union equals the union of the closures
From: JSH on 13 Jul 2010 21:12 On Jul 13, 3:34 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 07/12/2010 11:20 PM, JSH wrote: > > > People can quite deliberately choose to be wrong. And ignore all > > evidence. > > And so can a majority of people, which is why social metrics are not a > reliable indicator of factual correctness. Yet you still parade it as if > it were. No, I say one thing, and claim I have mathematical proof, others like you claim I don't. That goes round and round... How does it stop? I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong. I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong. Round and round it goes. Years go by... So I note that I have an objective measure of growing influence with search results around my research, and people like you claim that doesn't mean anything. So finally there is a test for anyone out there regardless of their math knowledge. That then is relevant to your claims that I do not have mathematical proof, as of course, you could be in error, right? So when a person can do a Google search and see that I have #1 and you tell him that #1 means nothing, he can also wonder when you tell him that I don't have mathematical proofs!!! > > You have been told yet again. > > That you have a finding which claims to find mathematics in No. You have been told yet again that I use Usenet. > self-contradiction, given either without proof or via proof by "Google > says it must be so." If the evidence should lead you to conclude that No. Google gives an objective measure for people trying to evaluate who is telling the truth. Especially if they do a search, say, on: definition of mathematical proof I say that signifies SOMETHING, while posters like you claim it means nothing at all. You say it means nothing at all and should signify nothing to people who do that search. Which defies basic common-sense. If there WERE a massive problem at the heart of number theory that entered over a hundred years ago, then yes, it would make sense for a lot of resistance from mathematicians who'd have their life's work ripped from them. Can you imagine? Waking up one day with a "distinguished career" only to learn it was all a sad lie? The story makes sense then, while claiming that Google #1 search results do not mean anything in a competitive world, does not. It's not like Google gives #1 away. It is a true merit zone. Such ranking has to be earned. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 13 Jul 2010 22:48 On 07/13/2010 09:12 PM, JSH wrote: > No, I say one thing, and claim I have mathematical proof, others like > you claim I don't. > > That goes round and round... > > How does it stop? I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong. I say I'm > right, you say I'm wrong. > > Round and round it goes. Years go by... Have you tried using something like Coq? Great strides have been made in automated theorem provers; if Coq accepts it as a valid theorem, I'm sure you would find a lot less resistance to your "proof." On the other hand, if you have tried Coq, and it gives a negative result... > No. Google gives an objective measure for people trying to evaluate > who is telling the truth. No. Google is a company whose main aim it is to make money. It makes money mostly by selling advertising. It therefore has a vested interest in returning results to its own services. Furthermore, mechanically evaluating the accuracy of a site is beyond the state of the art today, so a search result ranking is not predisposed to be correlated with factual accuracy. I do not trust it as an objective third party any more than I trust Apple to be objective. > Especially if they do a search, say, on: definition of mathematical > proof Funny you bring that up. Your result doesn't show up for that search term on other major search engines. > I say that signifies SOMETHING, while posters like you claim it means > nothing at all. You want us to believe, even if you do not say it such explicit terms, that it signifies that your result is correct. Other evidence suggests that its ranking is not so much do to this effect as much as it is a bias by Google. > You say it means nothing at all and should signify nothing to people > who do that search. There are results for which I do not click on the first result. Why? Because a source I can identify as more likely to be trustworthy is second or so. I am, and I sure others are, more likely to select a Wikipedia result over a link to a blog post, irrespective of which one is number one. And people doing critical analysis will likely give pause at your blog: many of your posts have relatively few comments, which would tend to indicate a lack of interest in your blog. > The story makes sense then, while claiming that Google #1 search > results do not mean anything in a competitive world, does not. Obviously, I, a student studying CS and chemistry, who has not had any more advanced algebra class than Linear Algebra [1], have a vested interest in preventing my "life's work" (presumably in abstract algebra) from being "ripped" from me, insomuch that I would fallaciously claim that search results are meaningless. Before you try to switch the debate back to your general conspiracy of math professors, let me note that I doubt that anyone has ripped on your search results anywhere near the degree that I have. Now, you claim that this explanation makes more sense than my claim that the result is mostly due to a bias that Google has... This strikes me as just a tad incredulous. Then again, you have not shown much desire to obtain context; despite the ease with which you could confirm this. I'll give you a hint: 6 of the top 10 results for a Google search for my name return stuff I've written, 2 are lookup services, and 2 are services which I do not use that other people with my name happen to use (I also capture 8 of the next 10 and 10 of the subsequent 10). > It is a true merit zone. Such ranking has to be earned. Somehow... I never found that to be the case. [1] Abstract Vector Spaces, actually, but the main difference seems to me to concern itself with the amount of proofs and the amount of abstract versus concrete problems done for practice. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Joshua Cranmer on 13 Jul 2010 23:02 On 07/13/2010 10:17 PM, JSH wrote: > My math blog got hits from 121 countries last year. It's math people > who live in this land of denial. Others just want to make a buck. First off, you dodged the question. Second, 121 is a meaningless number without any context. I demonstrated that a web-accessible intranet site that is extremely local in context retrieved hits from over 60 countries nevertheless. Third, a hit does not mean that someone is an active reader of your blog. That is a hard number to count, but comments will give you a lower bound on that. Fourth, an active reader does not indicate that the person is in support of your ideas. > But hey, if you are an academic mathematician and the world shifts on > you, then people take it all away. Your job goes away. With it your > salary. Your savings may go away if the federal government yanks back > grants. > > And to me, why would sane people chance that? And to me, what if you (gasp!) *aren't* an academic mathematician? A lot of your conspiracy theories rely on the presumed fact that many of your detractors are academic mathematicians. My guess is that most of them do not fall into this boat: responding to hyperbolic amateurs claiming to have disproven XYZ in mathematics is not a high priority for most people whose jobs revolve around doing research. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Tim Little on 14 Jul 2010 01:20 On 2010-07-14, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > At this rate, I'd expect either attempting to crack ECC or another > attempt at P = NP. Hopefully the latter, as it is something I > understand more thoroughly than number theory. JSH hasn't shown any inclination or ability to understand what ECC is or how it works yet. I suspect to him it's just a distraction posters mention to divert him from the really important cryptosystems, which are all based on factoring. - Tim
From: adamk on 15 Jul 2010 16:43
> > When that shift completes there will be a transition > point. How much longer should we wait.?. You have been predicting this for years. <yawn> > > And then established mathematician just won't get > paid. People will > just stop giving them money. > > Like a phase transition. It's almost like, an > established > mathematician will try to go to work and he'll be > told, there is no > money for him. And nowhere that he goes will there > be any money for > him. > > And I think they'll say it's not fair, and people > will just not want > to listen. And that will be it. <yawn>. More rehashed failed predictions. But you live in the world of circular logic, where evidence against your predictions does not matter, right.? > > I think that's sad. And I think hundreds of > thousands of > mathematicians don't think it can happen to them > which is why they let > this situation occur because they lack perspective. That said by an unemployed, unemployable, who has not writtena single peer-reviewed paper. > > > James Harris > |