JSH: Yeah fame is weird
in [Math]
|
From: Rick Decker on 14 Jun 2010 10:36 On 6/14/10 10:00 AM, JSH wrote: > 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: >> <snip bloviation> >> >>> 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. Good heavens, are you still beating that dead horse? As you had been shown many times over, your "contradiction" was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You did come up with an error, but unfortunately it was in your own reasoning. > > 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. Heh. The algebraic numbers "fight with" the complex numbers. Can we see that on pay-per-view, or would you rather see (again) my refutation article? I'll be happy to provide it. > > 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. Actually the Math Cabal's (TM) destruction of the Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics was motivated by a slightly different piece of your word salad. Regards, Rick
From: Jim Ferry on 14 Jun 2010 12:56 On Jun 13, 11:51 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. Oh, I don't think it's that subjective. Fame is just, "oh, yeah, I've heard of that guy." It used to be that you only heard about people when they did something great or terrible. Now you can become famous for recording a sufficiently silly video of your cat. > 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. Yes: thousands of people know who you are. > 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? Now you're talking about fame at the level of hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions. So yes, you're famous. But not that 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. Right, you're not in the top 10, but you may be in the top 10 million, which is to say, in the 99.9 percentile of fame. > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > human being in the math field on the planet by far. Hmm. When I look at that statement through your famous JSH-tinted glasses I think, no, your brilliant ideas have had no influence because they have been suppressed by the mathematical establishment's Illuminati. And when I take the glasses off I think, no you have had no influence because you are unable to formulate coherent mathematical ideas. > I've actually been hoping to avoid celebrity. Seems it can be kind of > annoying. Oh this is extremely disappointing! I would love to see you in a reality show. I will say "reality show" a few more times (reality show reality show reality show) in the hopes of improving the search score and thus connecting with a television producer to pitch this idea: Unrecognized Genius. Gather together a dozen people who believe themselves to be towering intellects whose work is being suppressed by the academic establishment and give them an opportunity to bypass that establishment on network television. Then put them in interesting problem-solving situations a la Survivor, Ender's Game, or the Saw movies. Okay, maybe not the Saw movies. > 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 Well, I'm glad you're trying to minimize the damage. We wouldn't want 2 + 2 equaling 5.
From: hagman on 14 Jun 2010 15:59 On 14 Jun., 18:56, Jim Ferry <corkleb...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:51 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. > > Oh, I don't think it's that subjective. Fame is just, "oh, yeah, I've > heard of that guy." It used to be that you only heard about people > when they did something great or terrible. Now you can become famous > for recording a sufficiently silly video of your cat. > > > 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. > > Yes: thousands of people know who you are. > > > 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? > > Now you're talking about fame at the level of hundreds of thousands to > hundreds of millions. So yes, you're famous. But not that 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. > > Right, you're not in the top 10, but you may be in the top 10 million, > which is to say, in the 99.9 percentile of fame. > > > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > > human being in the math field on the planet by far. > > Hmm. When I look at that statement through your famous JSH-tinted > glasses I think, no, your brilliant ideas have had no influence > because they have been suppressed by the mathematical establishment's > Illuminati. And when I take the glasses off I think, no you have had > no influence because you are unable to formulate coherent mathematical > ideas. > > > I've actually been hoping to avoid celebrity. Seems it can be kind of > > annoying. > > Oh this is extremely disappointing! I would love to see you in a > reality show. I will say "reality show" a few more times (reality > show reality show reality show) in the hopes of improving the search If there is *one* kind of show that is not appropriate for JSH, then it is a *reality* show. However, a daily appearence at Jerry Springer would sound comforting ... hagman
From: Joshua Cranmer on 14 Jun 2010 17:28 On 06/14/2010 12:56 PM, Jim Ferry wrote: > Oh this is extremely disappointing! I would love to see you in a > reality show. I will say "reality show" a few more times (reality > show reality show reality show) in the hopes of improving the search > score and thus connecting with a television producer to pitch this > idea: Unrecognized Genius. Gather together a dozen people who > believe themselves to be towering intellects whose work is being > suppressed by the academic establishment and give them an opportunity > to bypass that establishment on network television. Then put them in > interesting problem-solving situations a la Survivor, Ender's Game, or > the Saw movies. Okay, maybe not the Saw movies. I... oh my. That sounds like the first reality show I'd actually watch--assuming, of course, that the producer came up with some competently funny situations. A fun one, I might submit, would be attempting to hack a computer. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: JSH on 14 Jun 2010 19:48
On Jun 14, 9:56 am, Jim Ferry <corkleb...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:51 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. > > Oh, I don't think it's that subjective. Fame is just, "oh, yeah, I've > heard of that guy." It used to be that you only heard about people > when they did something great or terrible. Now you can become famous > for recording a sufficiently silly video of your cat. > > > 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. > > Yes: thousands of people know who you are. > > > 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? > > Now you're talking about fame at the level of hundreds of thousands to > hundreds of millions. So yes, you're famous. But not that famous. Really? How do you know? > > 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. > > Right, you're not in the top 10, but you may be in the top 10 million, > which is to say, in the 99.9 percentile of fame. Coverage in 120+ countries is actually a different kind of fame than most imagine. Most people are focused on their own countries. So for instance in the US a lot of British pop stars are relatively unknown, and French pop stars even less so, though thousands still know of them. But few American celebs concentrate on the world, as their aim is on the US. My aim is outside the US. Top celebrities are known around the world, of course, but fewer on the lower rung get coverage in a lot of countries. In my case though, even in 120+ countries it could be a few dozen people in each or maybe less who actually know of me, so it's a new Internet reality that can allow that kind of reach with so few numbers. > > But for a while now I've been probably the most influential single > > human being in the math field on the planet by far. > > Hmm. When I look at that statement through your famous JSH-tinted > glasses I think, no, your brilliant ideas have had no influence > because they have been suppressed by the mathematical establishment's > Illuminati. And when I take the glasses off I think, no you have had > no influence because you are unable to formulate coherent mathematical > ideas. Logically most of my influence would be outside the US and Britain because they are considered the top countries mathematically. To come to my ideas you need people who are more open to something very different than American or British students who may suppose they already have the best mathematics simply out of habit. For instance, lately on mymath blog comments have come in Chinese, which tests my ability to evaluate them as I use Google Translate. That is consistent with the theory. If my research is growing in China, what makes you think you'd know? There are around 6.8 billion people in this world. The simple notion that you have a good idea of what most of them are doing contradicts assertions of high intelligence on your part, as it's a very narrow point of view. My math is growing, worldwide. As it grows its influence will eventually be greater than that of the currently established number theory. And its students will replace the current math society, worldwide. It's just a matter of time. James Harris |