JSH: Yeah fame is weird
in [Math]
|
From: JSH on 14 Jun 2010 21:16 On Jun 14, 2:57 am, Enrico <ungerne...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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 Maybe. But I'm looking at a LOT of data. More importantly, the algebraic integers vs complex numbers result IS actually fairly straightforward. Assume we have an efficient world when it comes to processing important information. And assume that Google does reflect world interest, then my paper showing an astounding error in established number theory *should* come up highly! That is a logical result. Now we already know that established math people and their supporters rejected the result forcefully, and even killed a math journal rather than face it. Their objectivity then is zero. There is no reason to believe they'd accept ANY evidence at this point, and will deny until failure--that is, until someone forcefully stops them. But why should the bulk of the world? Ask yourself, why would anyone who is aware of the error acknowledge their awareness? James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 14 Jun 2010 21:14 On 06/14/2010 07:48 PM, JSH wrote: > 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. I'm sure that, say, a star UK footballer would be known in pretty much every country that plays football to some degree. Which is actually quite a lot. Perhaps just 1000 people in each of those countries, times over a 100 countries, and you get at least 100,000 people who know him. Plus anyone who's an absolute football fanatic, so I'd estimate at least 1,000,000. Actually, the FIFA world cup in 2006 was watched by *at least* 260 million people. The UK, by contrast, has about 60 million people, so suggesting that 100 million people may know a football star outside his home country is probably credible. If he's not well-known in the U.S., it's because the U.S. doesn't really care about football. [Even though I live in the U.S., I still think it's better to associate football with a game that actually uses feet. Although I like the name "soccer" better for some reason.] > But few American celebs concentrate on the world, as their aim is on > the US. My aim is outside the US. Around 6.5 billion people live outside the US. If you can't claim a following of at least hundreds of millions of people outside the U.S., you're not really carrying a significant fraction. > 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. A site which isn't practically usable outside of a very specific locale in the U.S. recorded the following stats for all of 2009: India 396 Italy 274 Australia 216 Mexico 192 Canada 124 Japan 105 Germany 98 France 76 New Zealand 59 Spain 40 Argentina 39 United Kingdom 33 Brazil 30 Israel 27 Netherlands 23 Indonesia 21 Chile 21 Malawi 19 Russia 17 Peru 16 Slovenia 15 China 13 Turkey 12 Ecuador 9 Georgia 8 Czech 8 Singapore 7 Belgium 7 Romania 6 Uzbekistan 6 South Korea 6 Croatia 6 Slovakia 5 Ireland 5 Malaysia 4 Poland 4 South Africa 4 Sweden 4 Taiwan 4 Austria 4 Nepal 3 Greece 3 Switzerland 3 Portugal 3 Ghana 3 Kenya 2 Hungary 2 Philippines 2 Thailand 2 Hong Kong 2 Finland 2 Costa Rica 1 Denmark 1 Turks 1 Guyana 1 Venezuela 1 Norway 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Belarus 1 Samoa 1 UAE 1 That is over a thousand people from 61 countries, not including the U.S., who are visiting a website which is useless to them. So saying that 120 countries read your blog is rather meaningless: you would get half that number for no other reason than "your website exists", and is not indicative of anyone who paid attention to the content or, least of all, actually agreed with it. > Logically most of my influence would be outside the US and Britain > because they are considered the top countries mathematically. What about Russia and Mr. Perelman? France and L'�cole Polytechnique should also have some good math results, as would German schools (I presume). > For instance, lately on mymath blog comments have come in Chinese, > which tests my ability to evaluate them as I use Google Translate. Probably spam. > If my research is growing in China, what makes you think you'd know? The results of China on international standard examinations. > 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. Over half of that 6.8 billion people are currently living on a subsistence lifestyle. So I'd wager that most of the people in this world are wondering how, what, or if they are going to eat tomorrow. Or perhaps they're sleeping right now; it is nighttime in many of the more populated sections of the globe. -- 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 21:36 On Jun 14, 6:14 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 06/14/2010 07:48 PM, JSH wrote: > > > 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. > > I'm sure that, say, a star UK footballer would be known in pretty much > every country that plays football to some degree. Which is actually > quite a lot. Perhaps just 1000 people in each of those countries, times > over a 100 countries, and you get at least 100,000 people who know him. > Plus anyone who's an absolute football fanatic, so I'd estimate at least > 1,000,000. What most of the world calls football and what we call soccer is a VERY popular sport. A pro footballer should be known in quite a few countries. A better comparison is singing. Singers can become very popular but most end up famous in their home countries while a few cover most of the world, say over 200 countries. But a good example of a HUGE name in some areas that is less well- known in the US is Lena. While a huge name around the world now and in her home country of Germany, I'm sure few in the US know who she is, though still a sizeable number DO know who she is. > Actually, the FIFA world cup in 2006 was watched by *at least* 260 > million people. The UK, by contrast, has about 60 million people, so > suggesting that 100 million people may know a football star outside his > home country is probably credible. If he's not well-known in the U.S., > it's because the U.S. doesn't really care about football. > > [Even though I live in the U.S., I still think it's better to associate > football with a game that actually uses feet. Although I like the name > "soccer" better for some reason.] > > > But few American celebs concentrate on the world, as their aim is on > > the US. My aim is outside the US. > > Around 6.5 billion people live outside the US. If you can't claim a > following of at least hundreds of millions of people outside the U.S., > you're not really carrying a significant fraction. Why? Because that makes sense to you? There actually is a fame standard, and it uses country counts with recognition as part of a person's level. Crossing cultural barriers turns out to be rather hard. Besides, how do you know I'm not known to hundreds of millions outside of the US? I don't think I am, but how would you know? > > 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. > > A site which isn't practically usable outside of a very specific locale What's the site? > in the U.S. recorded the following stats for all of 2009: > India 396 > Italy 274 > Australia 216 > Mexico 192 > Canada 124 > Japan 105 > Germany 98 > France 76 > New Zealand 59 > Spain 40 > Argentina 39 > United Kingdom 33 > Brazil 30 > Israel 27 > Netherlands 23 > Indonesia 21 > Chile 21 > Malawi 19 > Russia 17 > Peru 16 > Slovenia 15 > China 13 > Turkey 12 > Ecuador 9 > Georgia 8 > Czech 8 > Singapore 7 > Belgium 7 > Romania 6 > Uzbekistan 6 > South Korea 6 > Croatia 6 > Slovakia 5 > Ireland 5 > Malaysia 4 > Poland 4 > South Africa 4 > Sweden 4 > Taiwan 4 > Austria 4 > Nepal 3 > Greece 3 > Switzerland 3 > Portugal 3 > Ghana 3 > Kenya 2 > Hungary 2 > Philippines 2 > Thailand 2 > Hong Kong 2 > Finland 2 > Costa Rica 1 > Denmark 1 > Turks 1 > Guyana 1 > Venezuela 1 > Norway 1 > Saudi Arabia 1 > Belarus 1 > Samoa 1 > UAE 1 > > That is over a thousand people from 61 countries, not including the > U.S., who are visiting a website which is useless to them. So saying And what's the site? You presume. Why do you say it's useless to them? > that 120 countries read your blog is rather meaningless: you would get > half that number for no other reason than "your website exists", and is > not indicative of anyone who paid attention to the content or, least of > all, actually agreed with it. > > > Logically most of my influence would be outside the US and Britain > > because they are considered the top countries mathematically. > > What about Russia and Mr. Perelman? France and L'�cole Polytechnique > should also have some good math results, as would German schools (I > presume). American and British mathematicians claim to be the best in the world. I'm not making that up. > > For instance, lately on mymath blog comments have come in Chinese, > > which tests my ability to evaluate them as I use Google Translate. > > Probably spam. Clearly, you didn't go look. > > If my research is growing in China, what makes you think you'd know? > > The results of China on international standard examinations. Made based on what standard? My results kind of uproot a good bit of established "mathematics". Besides, what if the Chinese don't wish you to know? I found a massive ERROR in established number theory. What if they have students that can now clobber the world on those examinations? What if they blew everyone else away like they didn't exist, except for the parts disproven by mymath, don't you think the world might notice? Then what? James Harris
From: Jim Ferry on 14 Jun 2010 22:03 On Jun 14, 7:48 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > > 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? I guesstimated. > > > 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. People in 120+ countries reading your blog does sound impressive. It would be interesting to know what the typical reader thinks. This would seem to be difficult data to gather, however, and could not be reliably inferred from blog comments because of selection bias. > 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? I wouldn't know. Spinal Tap had to inform Rob Reiner that they were huge in Japan. He didn't know beforehand. China is exciting. Truly a fertile field in which to plant your mathematical seeds. How could I possibly know if the seeds are growing or not in this foreign clime on which I have no data? This is an excellent point, James. In my mind's eye I see thousands of Chinese farmers tearing open packets of these made-in-America seeds and planting them in their fields. Packets with bright balloony letters on them which read "Pop Rocks". A hundred years from now vast Pop Rock forests may spread across China, tended by bright candy Ents. I have no data to the contrary. > My math is growing, worldwide. "Math": You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. > 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. Really? How do you know? > It's just a matter of time. Vast forests indeed!
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 14 Jun 2010 22:06
JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: >> What about Russia and Mr. Perelman? France and L'�cole Polytechnique >> should also have some good math results, as would German schools (I >> presume). > > American and British mathematicians claim to be the best in the world. > > I'm not making that up. So, you're not making that up. How about giving an instance where some American or British mathematician makes that claim? -- "This is based on the assumption that the difference in set size is what makes the important difference between finite and infinite sets, but I think most people -- even the mathematicians -- will agree that that probably isn't the case." -- Allan C Cybulskie explains infinite sets |