Tuesday, April 29, 2008


JSH: Surprising statistics

One thing I once believed was that I just needed to be able to convince one person I was right, and that could start things as that person could help and maybe then we could convince more people and it'd go on from there.

Over five years since I found a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, with my prime counting function old news, and with an invention of my own factoring method behind me, I understand now that the problem is much more difficult, so I'm working at puzzling through some of the more recent bizarre things, like web stats.

For instance, do a search in Google on "definition of mathematical proof" and I should be in the top 20 search results.

I've long looked at search engine results to attempt to measure influence, and they have long been bizarre, like at times my research would take over some search string that I thought meant that maybe I was getting somewhere, but years keep passing and other measures indicate no influence AT ALL.

Recently I got "quantified" so I can put up a link so that others can see what I mean:


Hopefully that will work.

My world wide reach for my blogs is 788 pageviews per month globally with most of my readers outside of the US, and the unique visitor count comes out to about 8 people per day for my three blogs.

Eight people per day, and I'm probably one of them. Very underwhelming.

Quite simply, the data indicates that I am mostly ignored, and have no significant web presence at all.

But do a web search on any number of search strings related to what is on my blogs, from math to music to current event, and they come up highly. My no-math, commentary blog took over the number one spot under its name on both Yahoo! and Google months ago, but statistics say it gets visited by maybe 2 people per day, and yes, I am one of them!

That data is consistent with Google Analytics which says almost exactly the same thing, and I went to Quantcast to get a second opinion, as I puzzle this situation out.

Quite simply, I have two contradictory data streams.

One tells me that no one is interested in what I have to say.

The other says I'm one of the most dominant players on the web in the world across multiple subject lines from economics to politics, to yes, a plot idea for a Superman movie, which is my favorite example.

Contradictions do not really exist. They are mirages.

There is always an underlying logical answer.

So what is it?

[A reply to someone who explained James how to improve his data concerning statistics.]

Good advice. So far I have Google Analytics and Quantcast, and I mentioned Quantcast because they're open and open source so I can easily direct others to the statistics.

I keep getting weird data out of these things though, where my favorite on Google Analytics was the day I had 10 pageloads with 0 visitors on one of my blogs.

So how do 0 visitors do 10 pageloads?

But getting the data right is more than academics. The statistics coming from Google Analytics and Quantcast track closely with those that AdSense gives me, so it's, yup, also about money.

Anyone have a good experience with web stats? Or any further insights on them?

Remember I'm trying to resolve contradictions here as do that Google search on "definition of mathematical proof" and you should get in the top 20 a page on my math blog which the web stats all say almost NEVER gets visited.

Almost never.

[A reply to someone who asked James whether he would not have to say that the bottom line of all this “seeking of attention” is nothing more than a symptom of his Narcissistic Personality Disorder.]

There is no new interest in statistics. I've been monitoring them for months; years in some areas.

The issue here is the bizarrely high rankings given to webpages of mine where statistics show little to no activity.

Like I just did a search in Google on "definition of mathematical proof". My blog page with my definition of mathematical proof came up second. It shows as having received 119 pagevies since January 1st of this year according to Google Analytics.

And then I did a search on: Superman plot idea

I put it that way to emphasize that you don't use quotes. That came up number one in Google, though at least it doesn't come up at all in Yahoo!

But do a search on: class viewer

And I get number one in Google and number two in Yahoo! for my open source project called by that name.

Its statistics have been available for years on SourceForge.

To make it clear that I'm puzzled by the high rankings and not the number of hits, I'll point out that a couple of years ago when I first started puzzling over this odd situation, I actually looked directly at hits coming to my page for my open source project as SourceForge allows project administrators to do that, and the hit count was right in line with the reported statistics.

So yes, it's bugging me. Why in the hell do pages of mine rank so highly when the hit counts and linkages to those pages indicate very few people are reading them?

For those wondering if there was a bump from these postings, I just looked and didn't see any.

Oh, here's a tidbit from the statistics though: crank.net has a page ripping on me—a pure hate page slamming me as a crank and crackpot—which links back to my math blog. Google Analytics says that it provides 2.55% of my blog hits. Just in case you were wondering…

More trivia, the keyword that provides 3% of my blog hits according to the same source is "fermat".

The top keyword is "mymath" providing 45.63%. I have 1 hit each over the last month for the following keywords:According to Google Analytics my math blog was visited over the last month by people from 40 countries, of which Russia and China are conspicuously absent.

The United Kingdom provided 450 visits, making it the most visiting, while my own country the United States came in second with 377 visits, over the last month. Since January 1st of this year it has been visited by people from 69 countries. With 1,858 visits from the UK and coming in second the US with 1,827 visits.

Hey, guess the Brits are more interested than Yanks in my math.

[A reply to someone who told James that anybody could see from his posts, both past and present, that he is driven by a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.]

Anybody and everybody eh?

How often do you speak for the entire world?

Have you READ the definition of NPD? I have.

You fit it more than I. Consider, you are on a worldwide forum speaking as if you were a medical expert on a severe psychological disorder, while I'm puzzling out loud about the weird high ranking of my blog postings in search engines like Google, where readers can just do a search on "definition of mathematical proof" to start wondering themselves.

You are the one gratuitously seeking attention for yourself by hanging on to my postings in the only way available to you as clearly you can't speak on the subject at hand, or I'd think you would versus setting yourself up for me to hammer on your inadequacies.

So you not only better fit the NPD diagnosis, you show why people with it are so annoying: not able to do on their own they find ways to put themselves in positions where they do not belong to get attention they cannot honestly earn.

To challenge that observation—I'm giving you a soapbox—tell the group what else you can talk about besides my supposed mental illness, what other accomplishments you might have, and why in the world should anyone ever listen to you at all?

[A reply to someone who told James that everybody understands why he is so infatuated with how many hits his blog postings are getting in Google.]

My blogs get pathetically few hits.

That's not the issue.

What IS the issue is high rankings for postings of mine on blogs and now I'm ready to simply warn search engines like Google and Yahoo! as I need an explanation.

If no one can give me one, then I'll look to the US Congress to force transparency.

I see search engines as a utility.

If I do not get an answer I will use the bizarrely high search results that I see to push the case that there is something weird going on, and ask for an answer.

So to Google and Yahoo! and the other search engines. You are being warned.

I don't have a problem with search results on my blogs disappearing from high levels, but if they stay there, I am warning you that I may use that to push some congressional inquiry and break open how you do what you do.

I don't like apparent contradiction.

And you are not beyond my ability to drag into Congress to explain. None of you are.

Test me here, and you'll see soon enough how serious I am on this issue.

Drop the rankings on my postings or else.

And I do not forget that the Google founders are mathematicians. If they are mathematicians first and foremost then they may find that some time behind prison bars is where they will land.

I'm tired of the games. I want transparency, or else I'll do my best to force it, even if it breaks business models.

Drop my rankings you idiots. Or I will make you.

Saturday, April 12, 2008


JSH: The circular argument

If you ask people how we know that mathematicians do not lie about mathematics, usually you get the answer that other mathematicians would tell you if they did!!! But what if MOST mathematicians lie about research?

Well then people can go to the great accomplishments of mathematics, right?

Well, those great accomplishments are in what is called applied mathematics, but most mathematicians today prefer "pure math" which is not testable in the real world, so it's just their word.

So then people go back to claiming that if mathematicians were wrong then other mathematicians would tell you!!!

How many of you accept that your success in the mathematical field if you are a mathematician in a "pure math" area completely depends on convincing other people to agree with you?

Yet if you're in applied mathematics every single person on the planet can disagree with you, and if you employ that mathematics in a real solution what can happen?

If it's correct, it will work and the world be damned.

But if you're wrong and every other mathematicians agrees with you, then I suggest to you, you are damned.

And you are still wrong.

I love this link so I'll post it again to give you the true reality of your democratic world that is all about how much you appease and please your fellow mathematicians when you read between the lines:


IF you do not kiss their butts they will break you. That reality is what defines modern math.

You are all trained to be butt-kissers.

When the solution is computerized checking of mathematical proofs, but oh? What? What's the lie?

Supposedly computers are too stupid compared to brilliant mathematicians who check each other!!!!!!!!!

The only goddamn area in the world left where people get away with claiming that computers are too stupid and primitive to check them!!!

So what's left?

Mathematicians are left to give prizes to mathematicians with their opinion on the correctness of mathematical arguments in the "pure math" areas that are declared to be proofs and real checking be damned.

You people can't handle the truth.

Which is why you refuse to actually push computerized checking.

You are losers.


JSH: Lying reality

The simple truth is that there are plenty of fakes in the academic world who hide in amongst those doing real research, and the fakes are nasty, slimy people who enjoy doing things like ripping on amateurs on newsgroups.

It gives them joy.

And it is a protective mechanism as well to help hide the charade.

Integer factorization is a sore spot because if someone steps in with a brilliant solution, then it will be difficult for the fakes to hold ground—though they will try.

So they viciously attack ANY potential new research into integer factorization that does not come from the fake zone. Anyone else notice that research in the area never seems to test the money flow? It never does.

As they don't really try to solve the factoring problem, as it's too big of a cash cow.

A reply to someone who guessed that James has not managed to factor any RSA numbers yet.

No. I haven't.

I've paused my research, temporarily, again, as I assess recent events like the worldwide financial crunch.

I can change history. I could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.

For real I could face feeling responsible for the destruction of entire economies if I continue, so I've paused.

I've paused the research indefinitely.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?