Re: JSH: Authority from Google search results?
JSH
> JSH wrote:
> > One of the more fascinating things that I've faced recently is the
> > question of why some of my own amateur research like on my math blog
> > comes up highly in certain Google search results. But one thing is
> > clear, when *newsgroups* are presented with the information, posters
> > immediately make efforts to discount such results, which is actually
> > kind of interesting in and of itself.
>
> Google doesn't have any magical instrument that can measure what's
> true. There is no such thing as an atheliometer. They don't even
I never said they did. However, "authority" is a reality of the
modern world where academics DO claim it in their own fields based on
things like publication in formally peer reviewed journals.
They would probably cite such publication in a highly respected
journal as important!
Web search results offer "citation" as well by showing interest in a
particular topic.
The question is, to what authority level?
> have a staff of the world's leading experts in all disciplines
> feverishly reviewing every page on the net in realtime. Nobody
> can afford that, and their users couldn't pay them enough to do
> afford it.
Editors at journals around the world--who may not be paid--currently
represent something of an authority as they determine what papers to
publish, while people who bother to read journals--I don't--offer
additional by what they cite, or talk about with others.
It is a lot of communication.
The web is a lot of communication as well.
> All Google measures is all that it really can -- what's popular,
Spoken like a person with a lot of confidence who is also massively
uninformed.
Even I hesitate to define Google, but when I do, I say they are a
multi-media company.
I don't dare say they are just people who measure what is "popular".
If research shows up highly in Google, like say, solving quadratic
Diophantine equations, so that people searching on that subject get
it, while it is NOT in a journal, while journal research does not, and
provably MOST people were to start using Google and ignoring journals,
would there be a shift in authority?
If that trend were to happen, what impact might it have on the journal
system?
Or, if I can just put up a webpage and have traffic from people all
over the world coming to my research, why in the hell should I bother
with editors and some freaking journal?
Can't I just jump around them completely? Forget they even exist?
Get authority based on usage *in spite* of them?
James Harris
JSH
> On Nov 28, 8:32 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...@verizon.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/28/2009 10:18 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > > Your primary point now is that a SINGLE page because it was on a site
> > > that also contained pages you feel were wrong must itself be invalid,
> > > when it was a page linking to videos from news organizations, and came
> > > up #3, as it didn't even come up #1. The Wikipedia did.
>
> > Honestly, when you view Google results, do you just look at the page it
> > linked to and only that page? No. You tend to click around the site,
> > especially if the information is more encyclopedic in nature. In
> > particular, in the context of the search, I did click through to see
> > more information--if I wanted an explanation of *how* the WTC towers
> > collapsed, that one page would have been rather useless and the other
> > pages somewhat useful (well, they did perpetuate a rather bogus and
> > inaccurate conspiracy theory, but that's beside the point). It's the
> > context of the page that counts, not the page itself.
>
> Except that becomes a judgement call you make.
>
> And regardless the #1 page is still the Wikipedia which you presumably
> are not attacking as a source.
>
> > > And maybe with one of those some individual person's definition trumps
> > > what is in the dictionaries.
>
> > > In my case I have defined mathematical proof.
>
> > Anyone can define mathematical proof, but there's no evidence (or, at
>
> Yup.
>
> > best, circumstantial evidence: nothing that would hold up per se in a
> > court of law) that your definition is any near the widespread use than,
> > say, the constructivist school thought.
>
> I never said it was.
>
> The question is, is it BETTER?
>
> > > Do you have any comparable competition?
>
> > The USAF, which has an operating budget of approximately
> > $160,000,000,000, compared to Microsoft's operating expenses of
> > $ 38,000,000,000.
>
> The USAF? Please elaborate.
>
> And notice, when I say I'm competitive with Microsoft and beat them,
> that is something they would presumably notice. I don't care. I want
> them to come after Class Viewer and try to get their own Class Viewer
> higher in search rankings.
>
> THAT is competition.
>
> Now then, what have you convinced yourself is competitive with the
> USAF? Knowing that in so stating you are throwing down the gauntlet
> against their programmers?
I'm replying myself to note that shut-up Joshua Cranmer. It's one
thing to claim "competition" it's another to actually BE in
competition.
I am competitive with Microsoft with my Class Viewer program by its
name. I challenge them to beat me. That is a message both to the
corporation and its developers.
You can see the state of that competition in any search engine, not
just Google. Search on: Class Viewer
Just did it for this post, and I'm still #1.
THAT is competition.
If Joshua Cranmer dares claim competition with the USAF he can be damn
sure they could have heard him, even if now he wishes to not elaborate
on it. So he already threw down the gauntlet against their
programmers.
I'm sure he's hoping they didn't notice, or are going, who is he?
But he may find that the world is far more connected than he thought,
when next he gets an opportunity to find out what they think of his
"competition" with them, in the United States Air Force.
Our military takes competition very seriously. After all, we are the
United States of America.
James Harris
Joshua Cranmer
> But he may find that the world is far more connected than he thought,
> when next he gets an opportunity to find out what they think of his
> "competition" with them, in the United States Air Force.
>
> Our military takes competition very seriously. After all, we are the
> United States of America.
If the military has half a brain among it, they'll know that a
tangential program being secondary in Google search results to a major
open-source email client is not a battle worth fighting.
I somehow doubt they need to worry about Google search results to gain
attention anyways. A smart person picks his battles, and, as idiotic and
dysfunctional as the USAF leadership seems to be right now, I highly
doubt they're stupid enough to waste resources on such a trifling
matter. Which was my point, really; a point that you seem to clearly
fail to grasp.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
JSH
> On 12/03/2009 08:15 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > But he may find that the world is far more connected than he thought,
> > when next he gets an opportunity to find out what they think of his
> > "competition" with them, in the United States Air Force.
>
> > Our military takes competition very seriously. After all, we are the
> > United States of America.
>
> If the military has half a brain among it, they'll know that a
> tangential program being secondary in Google search results to a major
> open-source email client is not a battle worth fighting.
What is your app? And what is the USAF's?
That's the question I want answered, so I can do the searches and see
for myself.
> I somehow doubt they need to worry about Google search results to gain
> attention anyways. A smart person picks his battles, and, as idiotic and
> dysfunctional as the USAF leadership seems to be right now, I highly
> doubt they're stupid enough to waste resources on such a trifling
> matter. Which was my point, really; a point that you seem to clearly
> fail to grasp.
Not the leadership--the programmers. Like I doubt the CEO of
Microsoft has heard of me, or cares about my Class Viewer. But
somewhere in the bowels of that huge company someone works on *their*
Class Viewer.
So now then, what is your app, and what is the USAF's? And no, no
general will care. But some programmers in the USAF may pick up that
you see yourself as beating their app. It's friendly competition.
Don't worry, no one will launch a fighter jet after you.
James Harris
Owen Jacobson
> On Nov 28, 8:32�pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...@verizon.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2009 10:18 PM, JSH wrote:
>>> Do you have any comparable competition?
>>
>> The USAF, which has an operating budget of approximately
>> $160,000,000,000, compared to Microsoft's operating expenses of
>> $ 38,000,000,000.
>
> The USAF? Please elaborate.
>
> And notice, when I say I'm competitive with Microsoft and beat them,
> that is something they would presumably notice. I don't care. I want
> them to come after Class Viewer and try to get their own Class Viewer
> higher in search rankings.
Good lord, are you still going on about that thing? Look, your Class
Viewer app is a piece of shit and adds nothing to the art of software
development.
It wouldn't even have been state of the art in the eighties: that would
be the various Smalltalk class browsers[0], which not only let you see
the class and instance methods and fields of a class but also let you
explore how classes interacted with each other, in some
implementations, provided simple development environments and version
control.
It's certainly not modern state of the art for class browsing: that
would be tools like .NET Reflector[1], and built-in class browsing
tools in Eclipse[2], IDEA[3], and other IDEs. All of these tools
integrate the design and use lessons of the last ~20 years and all of
them provide features your minimal class browser does not.
Your UI is badly organized and, if anything, even harder to use than
the javadoc generated documentation, your program is missing several
crucial bits of information about the classes it displays, and your
implementation relies on unsafe practices: from what I can tell, you
actually load the classes your program displays, so it can't be used to
browse classes from untrusted sources, which might run arbitrary code
at class-load time. The programming style is something I'd expect from
a very inept high-school student: random changes in indentation, no
coherent conventions, classes that duplicate features of the language's
standard library, and a giant God Class[4] over seven hundred lines
long. It's very obvious you did absolutely no research before writing
it, and it's equally obvious you haven't taken any of the more
constructive criticism you've recieved in, for example,
comp.lang.java.programmer to heart and improved your program.
If you honestly believe any business would stoop to the level of
"competing" with your program, you have drastically overestimated your
program's value. I'm glad you've grasped the basics of GUI programming,
but most people have the good sense to wait until they have something
worthwhile to show before releasing their projects.
-o
[0] http://blog.ofset.org/public/hilaire/squeak/hierarchyBrowser.png
[1] http://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/
[2]
http://giano.com.dist.unige.it/eclipseMirror/eclipse/downloads/drops/S-3.4M1-200708091105/images/drag-and-drop-outline.png
[3]
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/search_replace.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object and
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/wiki?GodClass
Joshua Cranmer
> Not the leadership--the programmers. Like I doubt the CEO of
> Microsoft has heard of me, or cares about my Class Viewer. But
> somewhere in the bowels of that huge company someone works on *their*
> Class Viewer.
"The Windows Forms Class Viewer only ships with the .NET Framework SDK
version 1.0 and 1.1."
Somehow I doubt that said programmer is terribly remiss about being second.
JSH
> On 12/04/2009 08:21 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > Not the leadership--the programmers. Like I doubt the CEO of
> > Microsoft has heard of me, or cares about my Class Viewer. But
> > somewhere in the bowels of that huge company someone works on *their*
> > Class Viewer.
>
> "The Windows Forms Class Viewer only ships with the .NET Framework SDK
> version 1.0 and 1.1."
>
> Somehow I doubt that said programmer is terribly remiss about being second.
Wow, maybe they gave up? My Class Viewer has been around for almost 6
years now. It took over the Google search result almost immediately
so it has sat there for about 5 years I guess.
Other programs called Class Viewer have come and gone in that time.
I'm curious to see a program take over from mine. Anyone in the
world. There are competitors at times I see moving up, but none take
#1, and I'm not even sure why not.
Now then, what is YOUR app which you have convinced yourself is
competitive with one by the USAF or do you withdraw that claim?
James Harris
JSH
> On 11/28/2009 6:19 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > A better search is: twin towers collapse
>
> > The top 10 results are enlightening. Wikipedia leads and I'd say that
> > NONE are conspiracy theories.
>
> No, the "wtc7.net" one is most definitely a conspiracy theory site. The
> banner practically screams it ("misinformation"). Just reading some of
> the stuff on that site makes you want to pull your hair out (the
> cellular system in the U.S. is not designed to handle a cell phone
> moving at 10K feet at several hundred miles per hour...).
>
> > I'd say doing a search in a way that people who actually want
> > information might do it, is what works.
>
> You completely miss the point, again. The thesis of our argument is that
> the search results of Google has no bearing on the validity of the
> pages. Indeed, what has just been demonstrated is that, in some cases,
> the "natural search terms" produce invalid results.
>
> > Making me 1 in approximately 6.8 billion people on the planet who can
> > do that.
>
> Quite the egotist. Proof by failure to find a counter-example is not,
> after all, a proof. It's just a mixture of laziness and, in some cases,
> egotism or perhaps elitism.
>
> > My open source program roared to the top years ago, and has not been
> > beaten since.
>
> Try jshydra. Wait, there's no competition for that name. How about the
> other projects I work on:
> * Thunderbird
After your claims of competing with the USAF I came back to where you
actually mentioned apps, and no way you are claiming you created
Thunderbird.
> * Dehydra
> * DXR
Nor these two...
> Wow, all of them in the top 10 search results. Two of them beat out
> other usage names. Weird coincidence, isn't it?
Not the same thing. I created my Class Viewer and ended up being the
sole developer (though that wasn't the original plan).
Who knows how many apps out there are called "Class Viewer" but I'd
guess it is in the hundreds, worldwide.
It seems to me some of you think I'm just bragging, but I'm actually
considering the issue of authority from search results which is not
just something I ponder, as LOTS of people all over the world work for
#1 search rankings or wonder what is the impact of the top 10
rankings.
Usenet posters appear to think there is some kind of one on one
competition--nope, none of you here probably can compete with me on
this issue, now or ever in your lifetime!--and that by simply
dismissing anything they have some kind of power, so I see these type
of discussions where one person simply throws out any rational aim in
order just to SAY SOMETHING dismissive no matter how overwhelming the
data.
But readers can just search: class viewer
That is objective data and is a reader by reader thing all over the
world that does not depend on what people SAY and is, you'll notice,
not moveable by what they say either. My Class Viewer has sat there
for 5 years on Google and I'm actually doing experiments at times to
see if they unseat it! Nothing changes though. Maybe now? Do the
search and see.
Now then, I emphasize that Usenet seems to produce a talking economy
where posters think that just by saying something they can gain
something like worldwide influence, or by dismissing it, they can make
it not be real.
But any of you who that search above know that "Joshua Cranmer" did
nothing but a local babbling on some forum, and his comments had no
more impact on the real world impact than if he were babbling about
Microsoft--the entire company. Or Mozilla whether he works with them
or not. Or any major corporation.
It's just that there is an app that has this dominant position which
none of you can touch. What you SAY is meaningless here.
Usenet does not give you mystical powers.
Saying *something* in a post does not give you superpowers over
reality.
You're still just who you are.
James Harris
Joshua Cranmer
> After your claims of competing with the USAF I came back to where you
> actually mentioned apps, and no way you are claiming you created
> Thunderbird.
Duh.
> Now then, I emphasize that Usenet seems to produce a talking economy
> where posters think that just by saying something they can gain
> something like worldwide influence, or by dismissing it, they can make
> it not be real.
Obviously, you must be referring to yourself.
> But any of you who that search above know that "Joshua Cranmer" did
> nothing but a local babbling on some forum, and his comments had no
> more impact on the real world impact than if he were babbling about
> Microsoft--the entire company. Or Mozilla whether he works with them
> or not. Or any major corporation.
I let my commits speak for themselves. If you were seriously interested
in figuring what I've done in the past, you would be easily able to
figure that out.
> You're still just who you are.
Well, duh. Why would I want to be someone else?
JSH
> On 12/05/2009 01:13 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > After your claims of competing with the USAF I came back to where you
> > actually mentioned apps, and no way you are claiming you created
> > Thunderbird.
>
> Duh.
>
> > Now then, I emphasize that Usenet seems to produce a talking economy
> > where posters think that just by saying something they can gain
> > something like worldwide influence, or by dismissing it, they can make
> > it not be real.
>
> Obviously, you must be referring to yourself.
>
> > But any of you who that search above know that "Joshua Cranmer" did
> > nothing but a local babbling on some forum, and his comments had no
> > more impact on the real world impact than if he were babbling about
> > Microsoft--the entire company. Or Mozilla whether he works with them
> > or not. Or any major corporation.
>
> I let my commits speak for themselves. If you were seriously interested
> in figuring what I've done in the past, you would be easily able to
> figure that out.
Couldn't care less.
I'm sure your colleagues at Mozilla know as much about you as they
need to know.
The point here is authority from Google search results.
If I do a search on Mozilla one organization comes up #1. Is that
just chance? A meaningless result?
Where are your attacks on Google search relevancy with a company you
claim affiliation?
What would Mozilla say about you if I asked? (Do they even know you
exist?)
What if they fell to #2? Would Mozilla find that a minor thing or
would they fight to get back to #1.
YOU brought attention to yourself and connected yourself to Mozilla on
this issue. One of their developers if any of them even know who you
are might enlighten you on the reality that Usenet gets read more than
you know.
If you keep at it, no matter what code you've written, you'll at best
be known for rants on Usenet against the value of Google searches.
And don't worry, others will probably look at your commits now. So
you've given yourself some extra attention.
I don't care.
James Harris
Joshua Cranmer
> If you keep at it, no matter what code you've written, you'll at best
> be known for rants on Usenet against the value of Google searches.
That's strange, I couldn't find any of those in the top 100 results on
Google. I wonder why... :-)
Mark Murray
> Couldn't care less.
Oops. James was wrong again.
> I don't care.
Really, really WRONG.
M
JSH
> On 12/05/2009 02:58 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > If you keep at it, no matter what code you've written, you'll at best
> > be known for rants on Usenet against the value of Google searches.
>
> That's strange, I couldn't find any of those in the top 100 results on
> Google. I wonder why... :-)
Trust me, it can take a while. But if it does happen, they may stay
awhile as well.
___JSH
Mark Murray
> Trust me, it can take a while. But if it does happen, they may stay
> awhile as well.
I trust you about as far as I can throw you. Due to disability, this
is not very far.
M
jonnie
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2313bf78-56a1-4a46...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Meaningless verbiage arguing, you must have been mean to your mother when
you were a kid.
jonnie
How come only 3 people downloaded it, and only 2 liked it?
Bet you downloaded it twice.
JSH
question of why some of my own amateur research like on my math blog
comes up highly in certain Google search results. But one thing is
clear, when *newsgroups* are presented with the information, posters
immediately make efforts to discount such results, which is actually
kind of interesting in and of itself.
What is the current accepted criteria for research authority is
citation of published papers in formally peer reviewed journals where
an additional layer of highly regarded formally peer reviewed journals
is often given as well.
But web search offers the opportunity for research to just be used,
regardless of whether it goes through some academic process or not.
And presumably search engines deliver to people search results they
find useful.
When it comes to research then, someone like myself would like to
present web search results as an indication of interest in my results,
while the establishment might consider it a threat to the current peer
review journal system.
That's because it IS.
If web search engines can objectively push up research based on world
interest then they can simply remove human opinion from the process
entire.
That could plunge formally peer reviewed journals into irrelevancy.
Remove power from editorial boards at those journals. And even
challenge the academic system by forcing professors at even top
universities around the world to potentially compete with non-
professionals doing their own research.
The question then is, does web search offer the possibility of an
*objective* "peer review" of sorts that is simply more effective than
the current academic journal system? Can the "wisdom of crowds" just
out-do editors at journals around the world?
Is the modern journal system doomed by the Internet?
For the curious here are some Internet searches where I appear to
dominate in Google, around the world:
define mathematical proof
solving binary quadratic Diophantine equations
Class Viewer
prime number compression
All those cases are WITHOUT quotes. Those should give #1. I have two
results that show up highly in Yahoo! as well:
Class Viewer
solving quadratic residues
For results that just show up in the top 10:
optimal path algorithm
tautological spaces
core error
object ring
I have surmised that Google search results may be a leading indicator
to research trends otherwise invisible, as some of you may be aware
that often new ideas take a convoluted path to acceptance, and can
seem unknown despite being around for years before some critical event
occurs and they take over.
For instance, the leading indication from Google about the definition
of mathematical proof may indicate that at some point in that future,
my definition will be the established one, which will then be in
dictionaries around the world, which is of course a self-serving
notion!
I welcome disagreement. The data is fairly easy to check: you just do
the web searches.
The implications could change our world, and shatter the academic
hierarchy, forcing academics to not just compete with each other, or
well-funded groups at private companies, but even with self-funded
laypeople--from around the world.
The hotbed of intellectual activity that could result is hard to
imagine. It could be a renaissance beyond anything the world has ever
seen, or given a lot of the crap that is on the Internet, one might
argue, it could be a recipe for intellectual anarchy.
What is the answer?
James Harris
Mark Murray
> And presumably search engines deliver to people search results they
> find useful.
"Presumably" is a funny sort of word to base a thesis upon.
> When it comes to research then, someone like myself would like to
> present web search results as an indication of interest in my results,
> while the establishment might consider it a threat to the current peer
> review journal system.
How would you use Google to find out if any of your results were wrong?
> That's because it IS.
>
> If web search engines can objectively push up research based on world
> interest then they can simply remove human opinion from the process
> entire.
How so? That is a HELLUVA big leap of faith.
<argument built on foundations of sand deleted>
> I have surmised that Google search results may be a leading indicator
> to research trends otherwise invisible, as some of you may be aware
> that often new ideas take a convoluted path to acceptance, and can
> seem unknown despite being around for years before some critical event
> occurs and they take over.
You haven't "surmised" this. You have depended on this without any
indication of its correctness.
<more sand-foundation constructions removed>
> I welcome disagreement. The data is fairly easy to check: you just do
> the web searches.
The web searches give raw data. Your argument imposes highly subjective
conclusions on those data.
> The implications could change our world, and shatter the academic
> hierarchy, forcing academics to not just compete with each other, or
> well-funded groups at private companies, but even with self-funded
> laypeople--from around the world.
Only if your argument is at least cogent, which it isn't.
> The hotbed of intellectual activity that could result is hard to
> imagine. It could be a renaissance beyond anything the world has ever
> seen, or given a lot of the crap that is on the Internet, one might
> argue, it could be a recipe for intellectual anarchy.
"Could be" is not an argument. It is daydreaming.
> What is the answer?
Ask a proper question.
M
Jym
> If web search engines can objectively push up research based on world
> interest then they can simply remove human opinion from the process
> entire.
Duh ? As far as I've understood, search engine result are based on what
people think is the correct answer, and you don't seem to disagree with
this. I don't see how something based on people's opinions could "remove
human opinion from the process entire".
> The hotbed of intellectual activity that could result is hard to
> imagine. It could be a renaissance beyond anything the world has ever
> seen, or given a lot of the crap that is on the Internet, one might
> argue, it could be a recipe for intellectual anarchy.
Yep. Couldn't say it better. there's "a lot on crap on the Internet",
even among the top ten results of google search...
--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.
JSH
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:30:05 +0100, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If web search engines can objectively push up research based on world
> > interest then they can simply remove human opinion from the process
> > entire.
>
> Duh ? As far as I've understood, search engine result are based on what
> people think is the correct answer, and you don't seem to disagree with
> this. I don't see how something based on people's opinions could "remove
> human opinion from the process entire".
Which shows the worthlessness of human opinion...
I'll explain with an example. Perspective is a difficult thing for
many people to attain once they have an opinion formed but my hope is
that maybe there is still hope for you:
Consider 2+2 = 4.
OPINION can be that 2+2 = 5.
Human beings can think the damndest things.
Google search results would tend toward 2+2=4 is the hypothesis, even
if people generally believe that 2+2=5.
IN context, here people like you on Usenet insult me, but my research
nonetheless beats top people in the field in areas of their expertise,
like: solving quadratic Diophantine equations
So DESPITE human opinion, Google is indicating that the group effect
is to find the truth, or you may disagree and say it's a worthless
indicator, which challenges the worth of Google searches themselves.
> > The hotbed of intellectual activity that could result is hard to
> > imagine. It could be a renaissance beyond anything the world has ever
> > seen, or given a lot of the crap that is on the Internet, one might
> > argue, it could be a recipe for intellectual anarchy.
>
> Yep. Couldn't say it better. there's "a lot on crap on the Internet",
> even among the top ten results of google search...
I gave two possibilities, you focused on one.
Google can be considered to be an objective, disinterested third
party.
Academics challenged by my research or people challenged by it for any
number of reasons can be considered interested first or second
parties.
IN a word, you may be biased.
Prejudice is as old as humanity.
James Harris
Mark Murray
> Consider 2+2 = 4.
>
> OPINION can be that 2+2 = 5.
In your case, that is tantamount to fact.
> Human beings can think the damndest things.
Indeed. You think your SWJPAM paper is correct.
> Google search results would tend toward 2+2=4 is the hypothesis, even
> if people generally believe that 2+2=5.
No. If there were enough people saying 2+2=5, 2+2=5t would get a high
ranking, irrespective of its correctness. Google doesn't judge, Google
counts.
Look at the high ranking some conspiracy theories get.
Google simply "twin towers" and see how far from the top the first bit
of conspiracy theorising comes.
> IN context, here people like you on Usenet insult me, but my research
> nonetheless beats top people in the field in areas of their expertise,
> like: solving quadratic Diophantine equations
Alpern beats you hands down. His process is complete and practical.
> So DESPITE human opinion, Google is indicating that the group effect
> is to find the truth, or you may disagree and say it's a worthless
> indicator, which challenges the worth of Google searches themselves.
/non sequitur/
> Google can be considered to be an objective, disinterested third
> party.
>
> Academics challenged by my research or people challenged by it for any
> number of reasons can be considered interested first or second
> parties.
>
> IN a word, you may be biased.
>
> Prejudice is as old as humanity.
So is selection bias, so is narrow-mindedness.
Just because someone else /may/ be wrong, doesn't mean you aren't.
M
Joshua Cranmer
> Look at the high ranking some conspiracy theories get.
>
> Google simply "twin towers" and see how far from the top the first bit
> of conspiracy theorising comes.
"twin towers fall" produces two results of the official theory and five
of the conspiracy theories. "collapse of world trade center" produces
three results of the official theory and three of the conspiracy theory.
Both results were counted as the number of non-indented result pages in
the first ten results. Note that the terminology produces a difference:
the latter result turned up the NIST report, an article (though not a
scientific paper) from a materials science trade publication, and a
Wikipedia article as the pro-official searches, whereas the former
result turned up a Wikipedia article and an About article.
Bringing this to a point: using the more proper terms will turn up more
scientific results [1], a metareview of which would show you that the
conspiracy theories are probably wrong. Colloquial terms will return
less scientific results, which will defer the results to be biased more
by the weight of public opinion.
In short: if you want to find the truth, eschew colloquialism in your
searching.
[1] One can argue whether or not Wikipedia can be considered scientific
in this context. I've never verified sources, but the Wikipedia entries
on highly controversial issues (like the WTC collapse) contain extensive
source sections and have highly approachable text. I list Wikipedia here
as pro-official theory, since it covers the official theory more
extensively, the link goes to the official theory, and the conspiracy
theory articles read as if somewhat dismissing them as crackpot.
JSH
> On 11/28/2009 5:08 AM, Mark Murray wrote:
>
> > Look at the high ranking some conspiracy theories get.
>
> > Google simply "twin towers" and see how far from the top the first bit
> > of conspiracy theorising comes.
>
> "twin towers fall" produces two results of the official theory and five
> of the conspiracy theories. "collapse of world trade center" produces
And still you don't have what I'd consider a natural search.
A better search is: twin towers collapse
The top 10 results are enlightening. Wikipedia leads and I'd say that
NONE are conspiracy theories.
Cherry-picking ways of doing the searches to make an unnatural way is
not hard to do!!!
That doesn't change the authority level for results from how people
ACTUALLY search, but it is of interest to watch posters engage in the
exercise.
> three results of the official theory and three of the conspiracy theory.
> Both results were counted as the number of non-indented result pages in
> the first ten results. Note that the terminology produces a difference:
> the latter result turned up the NIST report, an article (though not a
> scientific paper) from a materials science trade publication, and a
> Wikipedia article as the pro-official searches, whereas the former
> result turned up a Wikipedia article and an About article.
>
> Bringing this to a point: using the more proper terms will turn up more
> scientific results [1], a metareview of which would show you that the
I'd say doing a search in a way that people who actually want
information might do it, is what works.
Posters arguing with me before would come up with wacky searches,
unlike ANYTHING that a person trying to actually get information would
use, and then chortle claiming victory when they got bogus search
results.
But that's just a form of GI-GO: Garbage In-Garbage Out
> conspiracy theories are probably wrong. Colloquial terms will return
> less scientific results, which will defer the results to be biased more
> by the weight of public opinion.
>
> In short: if you want to find the truth, eschew colloquialism in your
> searching.
Like with the following search: define mathematical proof
It is succinct, to the point, and is a request from the user. I use
such requests myself all the time to get definitions.
In this case it gives my definition of mathematical proof--my personal
definition.
To my knowledge I am the only person in the world who can give you
such a search with a definition of such importance!!!
Making me 1 in approximately 6.8 billion people on the planet who can
do that.
> [1] One can argue whether or not Wikipedia can be considered scientific
> in this context. I've never verified sources, but the Wikipedia entries
I beat Wikipedia with that search.
They were #1 for quite some time until I gained on them and ultimately
beat them out, which dropped the Wikipedia to #3 for a while until it
recovered to #2, after some months.
I've talked about this issue for a while and as the Wikipedia
continues to update my hope is that changes to that page might have it
beat me once again.
I emphasize that I beat the Wikipedia, and in fact my competition is
often the Wikipedia. For me it is often just a rival where it wins
sometimes and I win sometimes.
But Microsoft can't beat me either with Class Viewer.
They have a Class Viewer for .NET, while mine is for Java.
My open source program roared to the top years ago, and has not been
beaten since.
It continually beats out any number of other applications with the
same name, including Microsoft's.
> on highly controversial issues (like the WTC collapse) contain extensive
> source sections and have highly approachable text. I list Wikipedia here
> as pro-official theory, since it covers the official theory more
> extensively, the link goes to the official theory, and the conspiracy
> theory articles read as if somewhat dismissing them as crackpot.
Google search results continue to improve in my opinion.
I think readers would be hard pressed to give a Google search that
puts up a crackpot theory highly in any area where most people do not
subscribe to that theory, with a sensible search!
I use searches that make sense, like: solving binary quadratic
Diophantine equations
Readers would be hard-pressed to find research from ANYONE in the
world that beats me, IF you are actually searching on how to solve
binary quadratic Diophantine equations!
My guess is that academics are simply being crushed out because what
they have is worse.
Google is acting as an objective third party, which is revealing I
suggest serious flaws in what academics will teach as the best in the
world.
For instance, you cannot find a better way to generally handle binary
quadratic Diophantine equations than what I give.
That is just a truth. Challenges to my assertion are not to call me
names, or to claim the search is bogus, but to GIVE a better method
for handling them!!!
But you see, the trouble for Usenet posters in denial is that there is
none.
James Harris
Joshua Cranmer
>
> The top 10 results are enlightening. Wikipedia leads and I'd say that
> NONE are conspiracy theories.
No, the "wtc7.net" one is most definitely a conspiracy theory site. The
banner practically screams it ("misinformation"). Just reading some of
the stuff on that site makes you want to pull your hair out (the
cellular system in the U.S. is not designed to handle a cell phone
moving at 10K feet at several hundred miles per hour...).
> I'd say doing a search in a way that people who actually want
> information might do it, is what works.
You completely miss the point, again. The thesis of our argument is that
the search results of Google has no bearing on the validity of the
pages. Indeed, what has just been demonstrated is that, in some cases,
the "natural search terms" produce invalid results.
> Making me 1 in approximately 6.8 billion people on the planet who can
> do that.
Quite the egotist. Proof by failure to find a counter-example is not,
after all, a proof. It's just a mixture of laziness and, in some cases,
egotism or perhaps elitism.
> My open source program roared to the top years ago, and has not been
> beaten since.
Try jshydra. Wait, there's no competition for that name. How about the
other projects I work on:
* Thunderbird
* Dehydra
* DXR
Wow, all of them in the top 10 search results. Two of them beat out
other usage names. Weird coincidence, isn't it?
> My guess is that academics are simply being crushed out because what
> they have is worse.
How about because they don't use the search terms that you do? Many
fields have more technical terms instead of more common place
terminology. Googling for "CAPTCHA" is more useful than looking for
"image spam verification" (trying to find the name of CAPTCHA was a
pain...). I'm more likely to find chemical information on dynamite by
looking for trinitrotoluene instead of TNT or dynamite.
> That is just a truth. Challenges to my assertion are not to call me
> names, or to claim the search is bogus, but to GIVE a better method
> for handling them!!!
You're trying to argue that searches are validation of your methods, and
then claiming that the only refutation we can give is to say that your
methods are wrong. I'll stick to disproving your line of argument rather
than disproving your overarching hypothesis. That shifts the burden of
proof to you to show that your method is correct... by mathematical
logic, not proof by authority.
But I digress.
JSH
> On 11/28/2009 6:19 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > A better search is: twin towers collapse
>
> > The top 10 results are enlightening. Wikipedia leads and I'd say that
> > NONE are conspiracy theories.
>
> No, the "wtc7.net" one is most definitely a conspiracy theory site. The
I didn't check the ENTIRE SITE, just the page that comes up highly
which is to a lot of video.
> banner practically screams it ("misinformation"). Just reading some of
> the stuff on that site makes you want to pull your hair out (the
> cellular system in the U.S. is not designed to handle a cell phone
> moving at 10K feet at several hundred miles per hour...).
And I didn't see any of that when I checked which I just did after
reading your comment.
That's how bias sneaks in--even a site that has OTHER PAGES that
scream misinformation to you could have a SINGLE PAGE that lots of
people find useful, and checking that page I could see why it might be
considered useful.
> > I'd say doing a search in a way that people who actually want
> > information might do it, is what works.
>
> You completely miss the point, again. The thesis of our argument is that
> the search results of Google has no bearing on the validity of the
> pages. Indeed, what has just been demonstrated is that, in some cases,
> the "natural search terms" produce invalid results.
Yet the #1 page is to a Wikipedia article!!!
Or do you claim that the Wikipedia article is in error?
Your primary point now is that a SINGLE page because it was on a site
that also contained pages you feel were wrong must itself be invalid,
when it was a page linking to videos from news organizations, and came
up #3, as it didn't even come up #1. The Wikipedia did.
> > Making me 1 in approximately 6.8 billion people on the planet who can
> > do that.
>
> Quite the egotist. Proof by failure to find a counter-example is not,
> after all, a proof. It's just a mixture of laziness and, in some cases,
> egotism or perhaps elitism.
Point taken. One might argue that there are any number of important
definitions out there, like: define quantum mechanics
And maybe with one of those some individual person's definition trumps
what is in the dictionaries.
In my case I have defined mathematical proof.
> > My open source program roared to the top years ago, and has not been
> > beaten since.
>
> Try jshydra. Wait, there's no competition for that name. How about the
> other projects I work on:
> * Thunderbird
> * Dehydra
> * DXR
>
> Wow, all of them in the top 10 search results. Two of them beat out
> other usage names. Weird coincidence, isn't it?
Like what? From whom?
I didn't mention DMESE which beats out a stock symbol as I was
emphasizing areas of competition.
Like with Class Viewer I beat Microsoft. THE Microsoft. The people
who make Windows. Heard of them?
Do you have any comparable competition?
With my definition of mathematical proof, I beat the Wikipedia. And
it's a hard fought battle as well!
When I finally topped them, they fell two spots to #3 before managing
to claw their way back to #2, behind my definition.
Do you have competition on the level of the Wikipedia?
> > My guess is that academics are simply being crushed out because what
> > they have is worse.
>
> How about because they don't use the search terms that you do? Many
> fields have more technical terms instead of more common place
> terminology. Googling for "CAPTCHA" is more useful than looking for
> "image spam verification" (trying to find the name of CAPTCHA was a
> pain...). I'm more likely to find chemical information on dynamite by
> looking for trinitrotoluene instead of TNT or dynamite.
Or the definition of mathematical proof?
Oh yeah, I also take: definition of mathematical proof
> > That is just a truth. Challenges to my assertion are not to call me
> > names, or to claim the search is bogus, but to GIVE a better method
> > for handling them!!!
>
> You're trying to argue that searches are validation of your methods, and
Nope. I'm not.
> then claiming that the only refutation we can give is to say that your
> methods are wrong. I'll stick to disproving your line of argument rather
> than disproving your overarching hypothesis. That shifts the burden of
> proof to you to show that your method is correct... by mathematical
> logic, not proof by authority.
Burden of proof? Why do I need that?
Do you actually believe I'm trying to convince you my research is
correct?
Why would I bother? Who are you?
> But I digress.
The issue here is not what you personally believe. I don't care if
you believe in the Tooth Fairy.
The question is, does Google as an objective third party represent an
"authority" which can trounce, say, the academic journal process?
Just what is "formal peer review" in the Internet web search age?
If people are directed to me as #1, versus academic pages, which
academics are claiming are the best available, is that an error by
Google? Or an error by academics to update to the best research
available in the world?
I think objective analysis and skeptical consideration would deem it
LESS likely that search engines like Google would carefully select out
bogus research versus mainstream academic research, versus academic
researchers dragging their feet to acknowledge the best new
information available.
So my position is that Google gives you the cutting edge of research.
Now I may be biased towards my own ideas, but I think I gave a rather
nice, succinct and useful definition of mathematical proof, especially
when compared with mainstream academic ones.
And my Class Viewer has the best competition available in the world,
and at least by its name, it trounces Microsoft's own product of the
same name, which is again for .NET, while mine is for Java.
Do you think Microsoft takes that lying down? That to them it's just
a minor funny thing? No big deal?
Have you ever competed with Microsoft?
I LOVE these discussions as the irrationality is mind-boggling.
Unless you see the irrationality as having a purpose!
Denial.
James Harris
Joshua Cranmer
> that also contained pages you feel were wrong must itself be invalid,
> when it was a page linking to videos from news organizations, and came
> up #3, as it didn't even come up #1. The Wikipedia did.
Honestly, when you view Google results, do you just look at the page it
linked to and only that page? No. You tend to click around the site,
especially if the information is more encyclopedic in nature. In
particular, in the context of the search, I did click through to see
more information--if I wanted an explanation of *how* the WTC towers
collapsed, that one page would have been rather useless and the other
pages somewhat useful (well, they did perpetuate a rather bogus and
inaccurate conspiracy theory, but that's beside the point). It's the
context of the page that counts, not the page itself.
> And maybe with one of those some individual person's definition trumps
> what is in the dictionaries.
>
> In my case I have defined mathematical proof.
Anyone can define mathematical proof, but there's no evidence (or, at
best, circumstantial evidence: nothing that would hold up per se in a
court of law) that your definition is any near the widespread use than,
say, the constructivist school thought.
> Do you have any comparable competition?
The USAF, which has an operating budget of approximately
$160,000,000,000, compared to Microsoft's operating expenses of
$ 38,000,000,000.
> Do you actually believe I'm trying to convince you my research is
> correct?
Well, since you're posting this in a public forum, I suppose you're
trying to convince *somebody* that your research is correct. And if that
person has any mathematical inclination, he or she would be asking you
to justify your results. You have a burden of proof to that person; if
you cannot provide it, then we can only assume that your research is
total and utter crap.
> The question is, does Google as an objective third party represent an
> "authority" which can trounce, say, the academic journal process?
No. To be an authority requires a modicum of static stability; Google is
too dynamic and too malleable to be a source of authority for research.
> So my position is that Google gives you the cutting edge of research.
Not gives you; at best, it is can give you. But it's scope is too broad
to be useful. I prefer using sites like Proquest and arXive to get
scientific journal articles.
> Do you think Microsoft takes that lying down? That to them it's just
> a minor funny thing? No big deal?
What makes you think Microsoft gives a rat's ass? Most of their revenue
comes from two products: Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows. A tiny
little utility that's useful to a fraction of a percent of their
customers being second isn't important. Both your program and MS's can
be replicated by a competent programmer with the appropriate APIs in
under a day. It contributes diddly-squat to their bottom line: in short,
it's not worth consideration on their part.
Yet you treat it as if it is some great accomplishment. Please, just
stop waving your dick. It's just plain embarrassing on your part.
sanboz
exceedling long and boring]
OneofthemorefascinatingthingsthatI'vefacedrecentlyisthequestionofwhysomeofmyownamateuresearchlikeonmymathblogcomesuphighlyincertainGooglesearchresultsButonethingisclearwhen*newsgroups*arepresentedwiththeinformationpostersimmediatelymakeeffortstodiscountsuchresultswhichisactuallykindofinterestinginandofitselfWhatisthecurentacceptedcriteriaforesearchauthorityiscitationofpublishedpapersinformallypeereviewedjournalswhereanadditionallayerofhighlyregardedformallypeereviewedjournalsisoftengivenaswellButwebsearchofferstheopportunityforesearchtojustbeusedregardlesofwhetheritgoesthroughsomeacademicprocesornotAndpresumablysearchenginesdelivertopeoplesearchresultstheyfindusefulWhenitcomestoresearchthensomeonelikemyselfwouldliketopresentwebsearchresultsasanindicationofinterestinmyresultswhiletheestablishmentmightconsideritathreattothecurentpeereviewjournalsystemThat'sbecauseitISIfwebsearchenginescanobjectivelypushupresearchbasedonworldinterestthentheycansimplyremovehumanopinionfromtheprocesentireThatcouldplungeformallypeereviewedjournalsintoirelevancyRemovepowerfromeditorialboardsatthosejournalsAndevenchallengetheacademicsystembyforcingprofesorsateventopuniversitiesaroundtheworldtopotentiallycompetewithnonprofesionalsdoingtheirownresearchThequestionthenisdoeswebsearchoffertheposibilityofan*objective*"peereview"ofsortsthatisimplymoreeffectivethanthecurentacademicjournalsystemCanthe"wisdomofcrowds"justoutoeditorsatjournalsaroundtheworldIsthemodernjournalsystemdoomedbytheInternetForthecuriousherearesomeInternetsearcheswhereIappeartodominateinGooglearoundtheworld:definemathematicalproofsolvingbinaryquadraticDiophantineequationsClasViewerprimenumbercompresionAllthosecasesareWITHOUTquotesThoseshouldgive#1IhavetworesultsthatshowuphighlyinYahooaswell:ClasViewersolvingquadraticresiduesForesultsthatjustshowupinthetop10:optimalpathalgorithmtautologicalspacescoreerorobjectringIhavesurmisedthatGooglesearchresultsmaybealeadingindicatortoresearchtrendsotherwiseinvisibleasomeofyoumaybeawarethatoftennewideastakeaconvolutedpathtoacceptanceandcanseemunknowndespitebeingaroundforyearsbeforesomecriticaleventoccursandtheytakeoverForinstancetheleadingindicationfromGoogleaboutthedefinitionofmathematicalproofmayindicatethatatsomepointinthatfuturemydefinitionwillbetheestablishedonewhichwillthenbeindictionariesaroundtheworldwhichisofcourseaselfservingnotionIwelcomedisagreementThedataisfairlyeasytocheck:youjustdothewebsearchesTheimplicationscouldchangeourworldandshattertheacademichierarchyforcingacademicstonotjustcompetewitheachotherorwellfundedgroupsatprivatecompaniesbutevenwithselffundedlaypeoplefromaroundtheworldThehotbedofintellectualactivitythatcouldresultishardtoimagineItcouldbearenaisancebeyondanythingtheworldhaseverseenorgivenalotofthecrapthatisontheInternetonemightargueitcouldbearecipeforintellectualanarchyWhatistheanswerJamesHaris
Mark Murray
> Do you actually believe I'm trying to convince you my research is
> correct?
Yes. Very desperately.
> Why would I bother? Who are you?
"You" is anyone who is not "James S Harris, the Amateur Mathematician".
Why would you bother? Because you have an ego to feed, and it's
supper-time. You (JSH) don't give a damn about individuals. Mass
adoration is your goal.
M
JSH
> On 11/28/2009 10:18 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > Your primary point now is that a SINGLE page because it was on a site
> > that also contained pages you feel were wrong must itself be invalid,
> > when it was a page linking to videos from news organizations, and came
> > up #3, as it didn't even come up #1. The Wikipedia did.
>
> Honestly, when you view Google results, do you just look at the page it
> linked to and only that page? No. You tend to click around the site,
> especially if the information is more encyclopedic in nature. In
> particular, in the context of the search, I did click through to see
> more information--if I wanted an explanation of *how* the WTC towers
> collapsed, that one page would have been rather useless and the other
> pages somewhat useful (well, they did perpetuate a rather bogus and
> inaccurate conspiracy theory, but that's beside the point). It's the
> context of the page that counts, not the page itself.
Except that becomes a judgement call you make.
And regardless the #1 page is still the Wikipedia which you presumably
are not attacking as a source.
> > And maybe with one of those some individual person's definition trumps
> > what is in the dictionaries.
>
> > In my case I have defined mathematical proof.
>
> Anyone can define mathematical proof, but there's no evidence (or, at
Yup.
> best, circumstantial evidence: nothing that would hold up per se in a
> court of law) that your definition is any near the widespread use than,
> say, the constructivist school thought.
I never said it was.
The question is, is it BETTER?
> > Do you have any comparable competition?
>
> The USAF, which has an operating budget of approximately
> $160,000,000,000, compared to Microsoft's operating expenses of
> $ 38,000,000,000.
The USAF? Please elaborate.
And notice, when I say I'm competitive with Microsoft and beat them,
that is something they would presumably notice. I don't care. I want
them to come after Class Viewer and try to get their own Class Viewer
higher in search rankings.
THAT is competition.
Now then, what have you convinced yourself is competitive with the
USAF? Knowing that in so stating you are throwing down the gauntlet
against their programmers?
James Harris
Mark Murray
> And notice, when I say I'm competitive with Microsoft and beat them,
> that is something they would presumably notice. I don't care. I want
> them to come after Class Viewer and try to get their own Class Viewer
> higher in search rankings.
Well, your "optimal path algorithm", you, know, the one one that was
debunked, is second only to some guy named Dijkstra.
> THAT is competition.
Yup. Some competition.
What are you going to do next? Come second to some guy named Euler?
M
Jym
> In my case I have defined mathematical proof.
As a matter of fact, before reading
"A mathematical proof is a mathematical argument that begins with a truth
and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true."
I must say I kinda expected something more... revealing ?
By the way, maybe you'd like to read "some guy named Descartes" and
especially his "Discours de la mï¿œthode" (http://descartes.free.fr/ in
french, you'll probably find english translations in a couple of minutes)
ￜ2.7 to 2.10 seems pretty similar to your definition. You should probably
sue him for plagiarism.
Or the "Trￜsor Informatisￜ de la Langue franￜaise" (numerised treasure of
the french language" which defines "dï¿œmosntration" (proof), for the
logical meaning of the word, by :
"Raisonnement qui ￜtablit la vￜritￜ d'une proposition dￜductivement,
c'est-ￜ-dire en la rattachant par un lien nￜcessaire ￜ d'autres
propositions admises comme vraies ou antï¿œrieurement dï¿œmontrï¿œes"
(reasonning which deductively establishes the truth of a proposition, that
is proceeding by necessarily steps to other propositions admitted as true
or previously prooved).
Again, I find that one suspiciously close to your definition (excuse my
poor translations skills).
--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.
JSH
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:18:01 +0100, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In my case I have defined mathematical proof.
>
> As a matter of fact, before reading
> "A mathematical proof is a mathematical argument that begins with a truth
> and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true."
> I must say I kinda expected something more... revealing ?
>
> By the way, maybe you'd like to read "some guy named Descartes" and
I have heard of him.
> especially his "Discours de la méthode" (http://descartes.free.fr/in
> french, you'll probably find english translations in a couple of minutes)
> §2.7 to 2.10 seems pretty similar to your definition. You should probably
My definition does not contradict prior ones.
> sue him for plagiarism.
>
> Or the "Trésor Informatisé de la Langue française" (numerised treasure of
> the french language" which defines "démosntration" (proof), for the
> logical meaning of the word, by :
> "Raisonnement qui établit la vérité d'une proposition déductivement,
> c'est-à-dire en la rattachant par un lien nécessaire à d'autres
> propositions admises comme vraies ou antérieurement démontrées"
> (reasonning which deductively establishes the truth of a proposition, that
> is proceeding by necessarily steps to other propositions admitted as true
> or previously prooved).
What is the definition of "deductively"? What is the definition of
"truth of a proposition"? What is the definition of "previously
proved"?
> Again, I find that one suspiciously close to your definition (excuse my
> poor translations skills).
It's well established that mathematical proof is about using some
argument and prior truths or axioms as they're usually called by math
people in order to prove some conclusion.
It's not the overall picture that's important here.
It's the skill in boiling things down to only what matters.
I would argue that "deductively" is at best redundant, at worse, at
times is wrong--are all mathematical proofs deductive? And "truth of
a proposition" seems vague. While "previously proved" seems to be
circular.
Not to knock Descartes but he died a long time ago.
Humanity has learned a few things since his body turned to dust.
James Harris
Mark Murray
> I have heard of him.
Really? There is no evidence to suggest that you have compared
yourself favourably with Descartes. That I could Google (must be
Google) for in the short time I have before I am blinded by your
brilliance. Care to enlighten?
> My definition does not contradict prior ones.
Missing the point, utterly. Read, James, read.
OK, OK, I'll help out. ANY idiot can do this. History is full of
credible efforts; we don't need yours.
> What is the definition of "deductively"? What is the definition of
> "truth of a proposition"? What is the definition of "previously
> proved"?
What is the definition of "what"?
What is the definition of "is"?
What is the definition of "the"?
What is your bloody point?
> It's well established that mathematical proof is about using some
> argument and prior truths or axioms as they're usually called by math
> people in order to prove some conclusion.
Correct!!
> It's not the overall picture that's important here.
>
> It's the skill in boiling things down to only what matters.
Like Leibniz did?
> I would argue that "deductively" is at best redundant, at worse, at
> times is wrong--are all mathematical proofs deductive? And "truth of
> a proposition" seems vague. While "previously proved" seems to be
> circular.
>
> Not to knock Descartes but he died a long time ago.
>
> Humanity has learned a few things since his body turned to dust.
Humanity, Yes. JSH, No.
But I'm getting a clue how JSH can't "deduce" much.
M
sanboz
On Nov 29, 12:40 pm, Jym <Jean-Yves.Moyen+n...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:18:01 +0100, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In my case I have defined mathematical proof.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, before reading
>> "A mathematical proof is a mathematical argument that begins with a truth
>> and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true."
>> I must say I kinda expected something more... revealing ?
>>
>> By the way, maybe you'd like to read "some guy named Descartes" and
>I have heard of him.
>> especially his "Discours de la m�thode" (http://descartes.free.fr/in
>> french, you'll probably find english translations in a couple of minutes)
>> �2.7 to 2.10 seems pretty similar to your definition. You should probably
>My definition does not contradict prior ones.
your definition is horseshit.
>> sue him for plagiarism.
>>
>> Or the "Tr�sor Informatis� de la Langue fran�aise" (numerised treasure of
>> the french language" which defines "d�mosntration" (proof), for the
>> logical meaning of the word, by :
>> "Raisonnement qui �tablit la v�rit� d'une proposition d�ductivement,
>> c'est-�-dire en la rattachant par un lien n�cessaire � d'autres
>> propositions admises comme vraies ou ant�rieurement d�montr�es"
>> (reasonning which deductively establishes the truth of a proposition,
>> that
>> is proceeding by necessarily steps to other propositions admitted as true
>> or previously prooved).
>What is the definition of "deductively"? What is the definition of
>"truth of a proposition"? What is the definition of "previously
>proved"?
You always have an extremly hard time with pure math.
>> Again, I find that one suspiciously close to your definition (excuse my
>> poor translations skills).
>It's well established that mathematical proof is about using some
>argument and prior truths or axioms as they're usually called by math
>people in order to prove some conclusion.
Which you *hate* so you rolled your own definition. (and smoked it)
>It's not the overall picture that's important here.
Yes it is. and you missed it, cant even comprehend it.
>It's the skill in boiling things down to only what matters.
Which you are unable to do, without incurring HUGE amount of errors.
>I would argue that "deductively" is at best redundant, at worse, at
>times is wrong--are all mathematical proofs deductive? And "truth of
>a proposition" seems vague. While "previously proved" seems to be
>circular.
Always in the passive, as you should be.
Let the big boys do their work, and go count ants at the park, JSH.
>Not to knock Descartes but he died a long time ago.
You did too. didn't you get the memo?
>Humanity has learned a few things since his body turned to dust.
your mind turned to dust, it is obvious when you try algebraic math, quit
snorting dust my boy and your head may clear.
>James Harris
Ray
> One of the more fascinating things that I've faced recently is the
> question of why some of my own amateur research like on my math blog
> comes up highly in certain Google search results. But one thing is
> clear, when *newsgroups* are presented with the information, posters
> immediately make efforts to discount such results, which is actually
> kind of interesting in and of itself.
>
Google doesn't have any magical instrument that can measure what's
true. There is no such thing as an atheliometer. They don't even
have a staff of the world's leading experts in all disciplines
feverishly reviewing every page on the net in realtime. Nobody
can afford that, and their users couldn't pay them enough to do
afford it.
All Google measures is all that it really can -- what's popular,
what gets linked, and what answers particular search criteria.
Frankly, they've even become rather vague about matching search
criteria lately, to the point where some searches drive me to
despair of ever finding things with Google or their imitators
and wanting to set up an alternative search engine that does
*NOTHING* with popularity, page rank, link counts, or anything
else and just returns random unordered links to pages actually
matching the search terms.
If you want to validate an idea, but you don't have the math chops
to prove that it's true (or untrue) looking to Google (or any search
engine) is unproductive. A more appropriate method would be to
A) code your algorithm.
B) code the dominant alternative (in this case Dijkstra).
C) code a random problem generator that produces problems in
the space you think you've found a solution for.
D) Run the dominant alternative side by side with yours on a
long series of randomly generated problems and keep score.
E) If the scores are interesting (better than the dominant
alternative in any consistent way) then publish the code,
along with an article explaining it and documentation of
the scores.
F) If people don't believe you, they can run the code themselves
and see the scores develop for themselves (you produce
repeatable results) and you don't have to argue about it.
G) If other people are interested in the scores, they will do
the serious mathematical analysis of your algorithm and may
discover interesting things about it that you didn't think
of, or figure out why (or when) it works better than existing
alternatives. Even if it doesn't turn out to be a solution
for the general TSP, it could turn out to be a complete
solution for some useful subset of it.
If the dominant alternative finds a better solution to *any*
problem, then you *know* you don't have an algorithm that always
finds the best solution. You could have eliminated that possibility
(and avoided making the claim that got people to ridicule you so
much) on your own before ever posting here. The method outlined
above would not require any ability to do hardcore proofs.
And even if your algorithm *doesn't* always produce the best
solution, it can still be a very interesting algorithm. If, for
example, someone finds a heuristic for the TSP that produces
better solutions on average than Dijkstra's algorithm, or runs
an average of 10% faster, or both, and never runs slower or
produces a worse solution by more than, say, a factor of 10, then
that would be revolutionary and worth rewriting every introductory
computer textbook now in use.
The headline over it wouldn't say "TSP solution", it would say
"TSP heuristic - possibly better than Dijkstra's Algorithm." The
article would contain the code you used. And the results would
be repeatable, and possibly extensible, anywhere, by anybody,
because you included the code.
Bear
Ray
> Just because someone else /may/ be wrong, doesn't mean you aren't.
<snarf> Quote file!
Bear