JSH: Yeah fame is weird
in [Math]
|
From: Joshua Cranmer on 15 Jun 2010 22:35 On 06/15/2010 09:58 PM, JSH wrote: > On Jun 15, 10:08 am, "Jesse F. Hughes"<je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> Google search rankings do not distinguish valid math from invalid math. > > I didn't say they did. [ ... ] > Or they can try (has to be Google): define mathematical proof > > When I do the search the Wikipedia has #1 and #2 having regained the > top spot a few months ago, pushing me down to #3. That competition is > a tough one. I LIKE beating the Wikipedia. And had done so for > months! My other competition besides the Wikipedia is MathWorld. You claim to not claim that search rankings factor in correctness of sites, yet you still go on and on and on about where you are in search rankings whenever people claim your work is not correct. > Some HUGE massive worldwide conspiracy maybe? Or, gasp, random? A > meaningless result? Or, perhaps, given traffic patterns, a reasonable thing to assume that Wikipedia (a heavily trafficked site with plethoras of links to it from many sites and with links to many sites as well, thus situating itself as a major hub in the vast graph of Internet connectivity) gives a higher ranking on Google than a rather single-source-linked blog? > Is Google full of hot air? Just tossing out high search rankings to > any idiot? Yet again you insinuate that Google's rankings are indicative of truthfulness, disregarding valid alternatives and presenting only strawmen arguments in contradistinction. Let me present this other alternative: you use a Google service for your hosting. Google, being the for-profit corporation that it is, wants to promote its own services and thus tweaks its ranking algorithms to ensure that its own sites would be more highly ranked than an equivalent page on another site. Considering that you so often caveat that the apparent results only show up on Google, its lack of appearance on other sites would lend its support to this thesis. What do you think about this possibility? -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: JSH on 15 Jun 2010 23:14 On Jun 15, 7:35 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 06/15/2010 09:58 PM, JSH wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 10:08 am, "Jesse F. Hughes"<je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> Google search rankings do not distinguish valid math from invalid math.. > > > I didn't say they did. > > [ ... ] > > > Or they can try (has to be Google): define mathematical proof > > > When I do the search the Wikipedia has #1 and #2 having regained the > > top spot a few months ago, pushing me down to #3. That competition is > > a tough one. I LIKE beating the Wikipedia. And had done so for > > months! My other competition besides the Wikipedia is MathWorld. > > You claim to not claim that search rankings factor in correctness of > sites, yet you still go on and on and on about where you are in search > rankings whenever people claim your work is not correct. Well I say my math IS correct. You and other Usenet posters loudly and often insultingly disagree. Arguments go round and round, and I say you refuse all evidence including mathematical proof. You say you don't, so I note Google results as people all over the world can see those without needing to know math. And you flip out, discount Google search results--showing the behavior I've noted. You'll dismiss all evidence. Whether it's mathematical proof or Google search rankings. Difference with Google search rankings is that people all over the world can see it for themselves. > > Some HUGE massive worldwide conspiracy maybe? Or, gasp, random? A > > meaningless result? > > Or, perhaps, given traffic patterns, a reasonable thing to assume that > Wikipedia (a heavily trafficked site with plethoras of links to it from > many sites and with links to many sites as well, thus situating itself > as a major hub in the vast graph of Internet connectivity) gives a > higher ranking on Google than a rather single-source-linked blog? Well, duh, it IS the Wikipedia. Thing is, I was *beating* the Wikipedia for the definition of mathematical proof for months. Try another search--has to be Google: definition of mathematical proof You may find that I beat them still. My competition is often the Wikipedia and MathWorld. Few others are in our league. Few others can compete with us three when it comes to math topics. Not even universities. > > Is Google full of hot air? Just tossing out high search rankings to > > any idiot? > > Yet again you insinuate that Google's rankings are indicative of > truthfulness, disregarding valid alternatives and presenting only > strawmen arguments in contradistinction. NO, I do not. Google rankings are indicative of irrational behavior by Usenet posters like you. > Let me present this other alternative: you use a Google service for your > hosting. Google, being the for-profit corporation that it is, wants to > promote its own services and thus tweaks its ranking algorithms to > ensure that its own sites would be more highly ranked than an equivalent > page on another site. Yeah, sure, whatever... > Considering that you so often caveat that the apparent results only show > up on Google, its lack of appearance on other sites would lend its > support to this thesis. What do you think about this possibility? Check Yahoo! Do the search on: mymath James Harris
From: Tim Little on 15 Jun 2010 23:42 On 2010-06-13, Mark Murray <w.h.oami(a)example.com> wrote: > On 13/06/2010 18:10, amzoti wrote: >> Delusional narcissist! >> >> No snake oil sales today. > > Can we PLEEEEEZE take it as said that yout think that JSH is a > "Delusional narcissist!" and Snake-Oil Salesman? I killfiled amzoti after the about the 10th repetition. The funny thing is that I intended only to make it specific to threads with JSH in the title, but accidentally left that out. I only discovered it after seeing your reply. I haven't seen any other replies to amzoti posts, so I suppose that this is that poster's sole activity in this group. - Tim
From: Tim Little on 15 Jun 2010 23:43 On 2010-06-14, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > But, then again, you're probably not counting number of papers citing > your work as a valid measure of influence. Of course not. According to JSH the only valid measures of mathematical influence is by Google page rank for extremely specific search phrases, and number of countries listed in hits for their blogs. - Tim
From: Tim Little on 15 Jun 2010 23:55
On 2010-06-14, Jim Ferry <corklebath(a)hotmail.com> 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. Your posts is Google rank #1 for "unrecognized genius" "reality show" already! Well done, that's better rank than James' for algebraic integers vs complex numbers. - Tim |