Tuesday, May 04, 1999
JSH: Webpage statistics
As of today my webpage with a simple proof of FLT has been visited 365 times.
Without the detailed stats that I got with my commercial site, it's impossible to tell how many of those were unique.
At least 30 of those visits were from me checking the count. That number also doesn't reflect those who went directly to the proof on page 3 which doesn't update the counter.
As a conservative estimate (trying to exclude robot programs and re-visits) I'd guess at about 100 unique visitors.
Of that 100 maybe 20 actually could follow the math if they chose to.
From posts or emails, I know of only three people who have looked at the site carefully.
From all of this, the only errors found were minor and were fixed as soon as they were pointed out (I'd put 'y' instead of 'y^p' in one place and I had a sign wrong on the first "Background" page).
Besides that I found two serious errors which invalidated the proof, though no one else noticed, and I fixed them. That was four days or so ago. So, there is now a proof at the site.
At least one person has taken it upon himself to find errors but I haven't heard from him or noticed any posts by him recently.
To make sure that someone else doesn't take credit, I've emailed the correct webpage to several people who will keep it for me. That was done several days ago. Due to the very public nature of my search, I'm not that worried about credit, but you can't be too careful.
Based on all the evidence I have before me now, I feel confident in concluding that I have a proof. Sci.math has played its role well as always.
Without the detailed stats that I got with my commercial site, it's impossible to tell how many of those were unique.
At least 30 of those visits were from me checking the count. That number also doesn't reflect those who went directly to the proof on page 3 which doesn't update the counter.
As a conservative estimate (trying to exclude robot programs and re-visits) I'd guess at about 100 unique visitors.
Of that 100 maybe 20 actually could follow the math if they chose to.
From posts or emails, I know of only three people who have looked at the site carefully.
From all of this, the only errors found were minor and were fixed as soon as they were pointed out (I'd put 'y' instead of 'y^p' in one place and I had a sign wrong on the first "Background" page).
Besides that I found two serious errors which invalidated the proof, though no one else noticed, and I fixed them. That was four days or so ago. So, there is now a proof at the site.
At least one person has taken it upon himself to find errors but I haven't heard from him or noticed any posts by him recently.
To make sure that someone else doesn't take credit, I've emailed the correct webpage to several people who will keep it for me. That was done several days ago. Due to the very public nature of my search, I'm not that worried about credit, but you can't be too careful.
Based on all the evidence I have before me now, I feel confident in concluding that I have a proof. Sci.math has played its role well as always.
# posted by James Harris @ 22:12 
