JSH: Yeah fame is weird
in [Math]
|
From: Ostap Bender on 14 Jun 2010 02:38 On Jun 13, 8:51 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > About a decade or so ago some poster noted in reply to me that I was > famous and I replied back that no, I'm infamous. But I guess it > really is about how you define "fame" and everybody seems to have > their own personal definition. > > But, I am read in somewhere around 120 countries that I can verify > just by hits to my math blog as reported by Google Analytics. Search > strings around my research tend to be in the top 10 at a level that > indicates people driving them there from all over the world. > > But you may say, you KNOW fame, and there's no way that any of that > matters as you don't see me on television, don't read newspaper > articles about me. I'm not on Youtube even! How can I be famous? > > Well it turns out that I'm read in about 120 countries according to > Google Analytics just for hits to my math blog, on a yearly basis. > > A lot of people narrowly define fame around celebrity, and ten around > the most visible celebrities, or around some vague notion of it that > makes sense to them. > > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > human being in the math field on the planet by far. Thanks, James, for heeding to my complaint that you are getting stale and boring. Claiming to be "the most influential single human being in the math field on the planet by far" is a great new joke. Have you emailed it to people like Sir Andrew Wiles and Grisha Perelman yet? I am sure they will find it amusing. Please remind us what the Humankind finds most amazing and amusing about your numerous contributions to math. > I've actually been hoping to avoid celebrity. Seems it can be kind of > annoying. > > So I've been impacting the math field for a while now and noting that > impact, as I try to adjust it to the implications of some of my > results and hopefully minimize the damage, especially the collateral > damage. It's a scary task. Quite simply I've been re-working the > mathematical field worldwide, slowly and steadily, for years now. You are being dead serious, right?
From: Mark Murray on 14 Jun 2010 03:44 On 14/06/2010 07:38, Ostap Bender wrote: > You are being dead serious, right? Never more so. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Enrico on 14 Jun 2010 05:45 On Jun 14, 12:38 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 8:51 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > About a decade or so ago some poster noted in reply to me that I was > > famous and I replied back that no, I'm infamous. But I guess it > > really is about how you define "fame" and everybody seems to have > > their own personal definition. > > > But, I am read in somewhere around 120 countries that I can verify > > just by hits to my math blog as reported by Google Analytics. Search > > strings around my research tend to be in the top 10 at a level that > > indicates people driving them there from all over the world. > > > But you may say, you KNOW fame, and there's no way that any of that > > matters as you don't see me on television, don't read newspaper > > articles about me. I'm not on Youtube even! How can I be famous? > > > Well it turns out that I'm read in about 120 countries according to > > Google Analytics just for hits to my math blog, on a yearly basis. > > > A lot of people narrowly define fame around celebrity, and ten around > > the most visible celebrities, or around some vague notion of it that > > makes sense to them. > > > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > > human being in the math field on the planet by far. > > Thanks, James, for heeding to my complaint that you are getting stale > and boring. > > Claiming to be "the most influential single human being in the math > field on the planet by far" is a great new joke. Have you emailed it > to people like Sir Andrew Wiles and Grisha Perelman yet? I am sure > they will find it amusing. > > Please remind us what the Humankind finds most amazing and amusing > about your numerous contributions to math. > > > I've actually been hoping to avoid celebrity. Seems it can be kind of > > annoying. > > > So I've been impacting the math field for a while now and noting that > > impact, as I try to adjust it to the implications of some of my > > results and hopefully minimize the damage, especially the collateral > > damage. It's a scary task. Quite simply I've been re-working the > > mathematical field worldwide, slowly and steadily, for years now. > > You are being dead serious, right?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ============================================================ > > So I've been impacting the math field for a while now and noting that > > impact, as I try to adjust it to the implications of some of my > > results and hopefully minimize the damage, especially the collateral > > damage. It's a scary task. Quite simply I've been re-working the > > mathematical field worldwide, slowly and steadily, for years now. In the advertising world, these are known as "forward-looking statements." Enrico
From: Enrico on 14 Jun 2010 05:57 On Jun 13, 9:51 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > About a decade or so ago some poster noted in reply to me that I was > famous and I replied back that no, I'm infamous. But I guess it > really is about how you define "fame" and everybody seems to have > their own personal definition. > > But, I am read in somewhere around 120 countries that I can verify > just by hits to my math blog as reported by Google Analytics. Search > strings around my research tend to be in the top 10 at a level that > indicates people driving them there from all over the world. > > But you may say, you KNOW fame, and there's no way that any of that > matters as you don't see me on television, don't read newspaper > articles about me. I'm not on Youtube even! How can I be famous? > > Well it turns out that I'm read in about 120 countries according to > Google Analytics just for hits to my math blog, on a yearly basis. > > A lot of people narrowly define fame around celebrity, and ten around > the most visible celebrities, or around some vague notion of it that > makes sense to them. > > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > human being in the math field on the planet by far. > > I've actually been hoping to avoid celebrity. Seems it can be kind of > annoying. > > So I've been impacting the math field for a while now and noting that > impact, as I try to adjust it to the implications of some of my > results and hopefully minimize the damage, especially the collateral > damage. It's a scary task. Quite simply I've been re-working the > mathematical field worldwide, slowly and steadily, for years now. > > James Harris =========================================================== > > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > human being in the math field on the planet by far. > In penny stock ads received in the mail, these are what are known as "forward-looking statements". Enrico
From: JSH on 14 Jun 2010 10:00
On Jun 13, 11:38 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 8:51 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > About a decade or so ago some poster noted in reply to me that I was > > famous and I replied back that no, I'm infamous. But I guess it > > really is about how you define "fame" and everybody seems to have > > their own personal definition. > > > But, I am read in somewhere around 120 countries that I can verify > > just by hits to my math blog as reported by Google Analytics. Search > > strings around my research tend to be in the top 10 at a level that > > indicates people driving them there from all over the world. > > > But you may say, you KNOW fame, and there's no way that any of that > > matters as you don't see me on television, don't read newspaper > > articles about me. I'm not on Youtube even! How can I be famous? > > > Well it turns out that I'm read in about 120 countries according to > > Google Analytics just for hits to my math blog, on a yearly basis. > > > A lot of people narrowly define fame around celebrity, and ten around > > the most visible celebrities, or around some vague notion of it that > > makes sense to them. > > > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > > human being in the math field on the planet by far. > > Thanks, James, for heeding to my complaint that you are getting stale > and boring. > > Claiming to be "the most influential single human being in the math > field on the planet by far" is a great new joke. Have you emailed it > to people like Sir Andrew Wiles and Grisha Perelman yet? I am sure > they will find it amusing. > > Please remind us what the Humankind finds most amazing and amusing > about your numerous contributions to math. > > > I've actually been hoping to avoid celebrity. Seems it can be kind of > > annoying. > > > So I've been impacting the math field for a while now and noting that > > impact, as I try to adjust it to the implications of some of my > > results and hopefully minimize the damage, especially the collateral > > damage. It's a scary task. Quite simply I've been re-working the > > mathematical field worldwide, slowly and steadily, for years now. > > You are being dead serious, right? The error I found where you can easily show the ring of algebraic integers contradicts the field of complex numbers takes away Wiles's work. Now the error is easily proven, and a contradiction with the field of complex numbers is a big deal as clearly the ring of algebraic integers is not really useful if it fights with the field of complex numbers. IN response though the mathematical field worldwide appears to be trying to continue to live off the error, and even destroyed a math journal to preserve their life in error. Given that reality there was no choice but to move towards replacing the current mathematical field, which luckily is primarily about informing of the error, and putting up correct mathematics, like the object ring, and far more powerful mathematics, like tautological spaces. So people around the world can learn the correct mathematics. Eventually, they will replace the current practitioners. But it still takes time. What you don't see may not exist to you, but for humanity it is of crucial importance, and a benefit of the process occurring in this way is that it may minimize the shock to human civilization. A new number theory develops alongside the corrupted one, and the members of the corrupted group pretend it does not exist. So far things are going well enough I guess. But it is an odd situation, and at times amusing. Like reading through replies to me on Usenet. Especially ones questioning my influence which often end up questioning Google's. Those are hilarious but also sort of strange. They reinforce the need to replace, not fix, the current mathematical field!!! James Harris |