My OPE & the Euclicidean TSP

[Steve Wampler]

Guess he published the book much later then...
...
So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.

Careful - the actual title of the book in question is "The History
and Present State of Electricity" - the key word being "History".

Since the term "Electricity" was in common use by Priestly's time,
I suspect the "experiments with electrostatics" that are described
in the history could indeed have taken place before the time of
Newton. I don't think Newton's contributions are being questioned,
but rather the statement that people at universities at the time
didn't experiment.

 

[Rotwang]

Oops, that should have been "Priestley", not "Priestly".

Guess he published the book much later then...

<quote>
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (pronounced /ˈnjuËtÉ™n/; 4 January 1643 – 31
March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])[1] was an English
physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist
and theologian. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in
the history of science.
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.

Yes, I know. Are you under the impression that people who write books
are unable to write about things which happened in the past?

(Perhaps, as Joshua suggests, you inferred from my article that Newton
himself wrote the book to which I referred. Nope. "Priestley on
Electricity" was written by, er, Priestley.)

Didn't you say you have a degree in physics?

And from WHAT country? Oh yeah, wasn't it some place in Great
Britain? Cambridge was it?

I have a degree in physics from Oxford. I also have a postgraduate
degree from Cambridge, yes - nominally a maths course but all the
exams I sat were physics.

Care to explain yourself Mr. "Rotwang"?

What's to explain, other than your terrible reading comprehension?

I did most of my reading as a child, decades ago.

It shows.

 

[JSH]

Careful - the actual title of the book in question is "The History
and Present State of Electricity" - the key word being "History".

Since the term "Electricity" was in common use by Priestly's time,
I suspect the "experiments with electrostatics" that are described
in the history could indeed have taken place before the time of
Newton.  I don't think Newton's contributions are being questioned,
but rather the statement that people at universities at the time
didn't experiment.

They didn't. Cambridge was actually rather staid when Newton was
first there.

Doctors of philosophy, philosophized. Newton revolutionized the
university.

His experiments with optics transfixed his fellows.

Nothing like playing with the rainbow...

Cambridge was actually in something of a downward spiral, taking a
back-seat to Oxford, though neither was doing much worth mentioning.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

Oops, that should have been "Priestley", not "Priestly".

Guess he published the book much later then...

<quote>
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (pronounced /ˈnjuËtÉ™n/; 4 January 1643 – 31
March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])[1] was an English
physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist
and theologian. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in
the history of science.
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.

Yes, I know. Are you under the impression that people who write books
are unable to write about things which happened in the past?

Why do I bother debating with idiots?

Again from the Wikipedia:

<quote>
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an
18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural
philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150
works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having
isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[2]
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley

Sir Isaac was dead before he was born.

(Perhaps, as Joshua suggests, you inferred from my article that Newton
himself wrote the book to which I referred. Nope. "Priestley on
Electricity" was written by, er, Priestley.)





I have a degree in physics from Oxford. I also have a postgraduate
degree from Cambridge, yes - nominally a maths course but all the
exams I sat were physics.

I hope you are a liar or they should revoke your degrees.

What's to explain, other than your terrible reading comprehension?

Your stupidity.

It shows.

What you show is the endless ability of people to pretend on Usenet.

You wish you had a degree from Oxford.

You dream you have a post-grad degree from Cambridge.

You fail at basic history of physics.


James Harris

 

[Junoexpress]

Also I'd submitted a paper
for publication in a journal that Professor McKenzie was an editor
for, and he'd deferred on the paper claiming to not understand it, but
offered that next time I was in Nashville I could come explain it out
on the chalkboard, which he said was the best way to explain. (Oh, I
think it helped that I forwarded him an email from Barry Mazur who is
at Harvard University, I think.)

Testifying to what?
The fact that you're a world-class crank?

M

 

[xunile]

Oops, that should have been "Priestley", not "Priestly".

Guess he published the book much later then...
<quote>
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (pronounced /ˈnjuËtÉ™n/; 4 January 1643 – 31
March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])[1] was an English
physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist
and theologian. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in
the history of science.
</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.

Yes, I know. Are you under the impression that people who write books
are unable to write about things which happened in the past?

Why do I bother debating with idiots?

Again from the Wikipedia:

<quote>
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an
18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural
philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150
works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having
isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[2]
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley

Sir Isaac was dead before he was born.

(Perhaps, as Joshua suggests, you inferred from my article that Newton
himself wrote the book to which I referred. Nope. "Priestley on
Electricity" was written by, er, Priestley.)

I have a degree in physics from Oxford. I also have a postgraduate
degree from Cambridge, yes - nominally a maths course but all the
exams I sat were physics.

I hope you are a liar or they should revoke your degrees.

What's to explain, other than your terrible reading comprehension?

Your stupidity.

It shows.

What you show is the endless ability of people to pretend on Usenet.

You wish you had a degree from Oxford.

You dream you have a post-grad degree from Cambridge.

You fail at basic history of physics.

James Harris

But James, Newton was dead before that wikipedia article you quoted
was written, so how could they possibly write about him. I am sure
that Priestley was dead before the article was written as well.

It is really too bad that it isn't possible to write about things that
occurred before you were born, or about people that have already
passed on. :-(

 

[Rotwang]

Oops, that should have been "Priestley", not "Priestly".

Guess he published the book much later then...
<quote>
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (pronounced /ˈnjuËtÉ™n/; 4 January 1643 – 31
March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])[1] was an English
physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist
and theologian. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in
the history of science.
</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.

Yes, I know. Are you under the impression that people who write books
are unable to write about things which happened in the past?

Why do I bother debating with idiots?

Again from the Wikipedia:

<quote>
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an
18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural
philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150
works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having
isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[2]
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley

Sir Isaac was dead before he was born.

Good grief, you are dense.

Yes, I know that Sir Isaac was dead before Priestley was born. Are you
*still* under the impression that people who write books are unable to
write about things which happened in the past?

Look, here is a quote from the book:

<quote>

[...] no advances were made in electricity till the subject was
undertaken by William Gilbert, a native of Colchester, and a physician
at London; who, in his excellent Latin treatise /de magnete/,
published in the year 1600, relates a great variety of electrical
experiments.

[...]

To him we owe a great augmentation of the lift of electric bodies, as
also the bodies on which electrics can act; and he has carefully noted
several capital circumstances relating to the manner of their action,
though his theory of electricity was very imperfect, as might be
expected.
Amber and jet were, as I observed before, the only substances which,
before the time of Gilbert, were known to have the property of
attracting light bodies when rubber; but he found the same property in
the diamond, sapphire, carbuncle, iris, amethyst, opal, vincentina,
Bristol stone, beryl, and crystal. He also observes that glass,
especially that which is clear and transparent, has the same property;
likewise all factitious gems, made of glass or crystal; glass of
antimony most sparry substances, and belemnites. Lastly, he concludes
his catalogue of electric substances with sulphur, mastic, sealing wax
made of gum lac tinged with various colours, hard rosin, sla gem,
talc, and roche alum. Rosin, he said, possessed this property but in a
small degree, and the three last mentioned substances, only when the
air was clear and free from moisture.
All these substances, he observes, attracted not only straws, but all
metals, all kinds of wood, stones, earth, water, oil; in short,
whatever is solid, and the object of our senses. But he imagined that
air, flame, bodies ignited, and all matter which was extremely rare
was not subject ot this attraction. Gross smoke, he found, was
attracted very sensibly, but that which was attenuated very little.

[...and it goes on...]

</quote>

How about that? Even though Priestley wasn't even born in 1600 (and
neither was Newton) he was nonetheless able to write about experiments
that were carried out back then.

I hope you are a liar or they should revoke your degrees.



Your stupidity.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wait, I'm not done yet: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What you show is the endless ability of people to pretend on Usenet.

You wish you had a degree from Oxford.

You dream you have a post-grad degree from Cambridge.

Huh - in the space of a few lines you've gone from "I hope you are a
liar" to outright claiming I'm lying. Care to back that claim up, or -
a long shot, I know - apologise, assuming that the facts of the matter
have finally penetrated that skull of yours?

You fail at basic history of physics.

I gave a quote, and cited my source. Why not try to back up your
version of history with some actual data?

(Note to c.l.j.p regulars: in case you hadn't guessed, I'm one of the
semi-regulars at sci.math, who came here to have a chuckle at JSH's
latest round of "research". This newsgroup looks active enough that
you can afford to host a few OT arguments, but if you'd like me to
piss off back where I came from you need only ask.)

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

JSH wrote: ....

I think she's waiting until you code up your algorithm yourself. My
experience, and her explanation of hers as well, tells me that it
wouldn't be hard to code up the algorithms you are positing; I extended
her program to include a GUI and transcribed your algorithm in under 12
hours. Heck, you can even reuse the code I wrote for all I care.

Correct.

Patricia

 

[Lits O'Hate]

Cambridge was actually rather staid when Newton was first there.

Doctors of philosophy, philosophized. Newton revolutionized the
university.

His experiments with optics transfixed his fellows.

Nothing like playing with the rainbow...

Cambridge was actually in something of a downward spiral, taking a
back-seat to Oxford, though neither was doing much worth mentioning.

James learned all this from the time travelers who wanted his
autograph.

 

[Daniele Futtorovic]

(Note to c.l.j.p regulars: in case you hadn't guessed, I'm one of the
semi-regulars at sci.math, who came here to have a chuckle at JSH's
latest round of "research". This newsgroup looks active enough that
you can afford to host a few OT arguments

Maybe, but there isn't really any point to it, is there? Riling JSH may
have exposed his less-than-reasonable sides more blatantly, but I for
one am not sure to find that really satisfying. My impression is that
someone making an utter fool of themselves tends to degrade the group as
a whole -- however secluded the individual in question might be. The
same goes -- again: in my very humble opinion -- for chuckling. The
ether seems to feel fresher, more invigorating without.

These comments should not be misconstrued as an invitation to piss off.
It's just that there's rather enough trouble afoot as is. First that
scum NewsMaestro and his sock-puppets, then JSH, then the return of
Twisted, his nephew zerg in tow... if this keeps going we might have to
let the Jews go!

 

[JSH]

Yeah right.  Newton revolutionized science itself.  During his time
people at universities had thoughtful discussions but didn't
experiment, trying to figure out the world based on what they just
thought was reasonable.
Where did you learn this crap, the back of a cereal box? This is
nonsense. On my shelf at home, for example, I have a copy of /Priestly
on Electricity/ (4th ed., 1775) in which the author discusses at
length many experiments with electrostatics which were carried out
before the time of Newton.
Oops, that should have been "Priestley", not "Priestly".
Guess he published the book much later then...
<quote>
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (pronounced /ˈnjuËtÉ™n/; 4 January 1643 – 31
March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])[1] was an English
physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist
and theologian. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in
the history of science.
</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.
Yes, I know. Are you under the impression that people who write books
are unable to write about things which happened in the past?

Why do I bother debating with idiots?

Again from the Wikipedia:

<quote>
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an
18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural
philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150
works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having
isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[2]
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley

Sir Isaac was dead before he was born.

Good grief, you are dense.

Yes, I know that Sir Isaac was dead before Priestley was born. Are you
*still* under the impression that people who write books are unable to
write about things which happened in the past?

Look, here is a quote from the book:

<quote>

[...] no advances were made in electricity till the subject was
undertaken by William Gilbert, a native of Colchester, and a physician
at London; who, in his excellent Latin treatise /de magnete/,
published in the year 1600, relates a great variety of electrical
experiments.

[...]

To him we owe a great augmentation of the lift of electric bodies, as
also the bodies on which electrics can act; and he has carefully noted
several capital circumstances relating to the manner of their action,
though his theory of electricity was very imperfect, as might be
expected.
Amber and jet were, as I observed before, the only substances which,
before the time of Gilbert, were known to have the property of
attracting light bodies when rubber; but he found the same property in
the diamond, sapphire, carbuncle, iris, amethyst, opal, vincentina,
Bristol stone, beryl, and crystal. He also observes that glass,
especially that which is clear and transparent, has the same property;
likewise all factitious gems, made of glass or crystal; glass of
antimony most sparry substances, and belemnites. Lastly, he concludes
his catalogue of electric substances with sulphur, mastic, sealing wax
made of gum lac tinged with various colours, hard rosin, sla gem,
talc, and roche alum. Rosin, he said, possessed this property but in a
small degree, and the three last mentioned substances, only when the
air was clear and free from moisture.
All these substances, he observes, attracted not only straws, but all
metals, all kinds of wood, stones, earth, water, oil; in short,
whatever is solid, and the object of our senses. But he imagined that
air, flame, bodies ignited, and all matter which was extremely rare
was not subject ot this attraction. Gross smoke, he found, was
attracted very sensibly, but that which was attenuated very little.

[...and it goes on...]

</quote>

How about that? Even though Priestley wasn't even born in 1600 (and
neither was Newton) he was nonetheless able to write about experiments
that were carried out back then.

I hope you are a liar or they should revoke your degrees.

Your stupidity.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wait, I'm not done yet: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What you show is the endless ability of people to pretend on Usenet.

You wish you had a degree from Oxford.

You dream you have a post-grad degree from Cambridge.

Huh - in the space of a few lines you've gone from "I hope you are a
liar" to outright claiming I'm lying. Care to back that claim up, or -
a long shot, I know - apologise, assuming that the facts of the matter
have finally penetrated that skull of yours?

You fail at basic history of physics.

I gave a quote, and cited my source. Why not try to back up your
version of history with some actual data?

You mean explain why Newton is considered to be as great a scientist
as he is?

Remember, I said that while Galileo had pioneered experimentation
Newton re-invented the university as people tended to talk rather than
experiment.

Sir Isaac Newton was at Cambridge University. Are you saying your
books cites experiments by someone at Cambridge?

(Note to c.l.j.p regulars: in case you hadn't guessed, I'm one of the
semi-regulars at sci.math, who came here to have a chuckle at JSH's
latest round of "research". This newsgroup looks active enough that
you can afford to host a few OT arguments, but if you'd like me to
piss off back where I came from you need only ask.)

Yup. He's a sci.math regular.

Sometimes I get a kick out of poking at some of them, I admit.

They're not too good with details...


James Harris

 

[JSH]

Why do I bother debating with idiots?

Again from the Wikipedia:

<quote>
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an
18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural
philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150
works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having
isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[2]
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley

Sir Isaac was dead before he was born.

Priestley was writing a book on the *History* of Science.  Priestley
was describing events that had happened before he was born, that is
the nature of "History", to describe past events.  In this case he was
describing events before Newton, and so telling us what science was
like before Newton.

Uh huh, so? Did you bother to read what I said initially?

You might wish to check things a little more carefully before using
words like "idiots".

Why? When it's so much fun?

Besides, you people are sci.math'ers so it's not like a real
discussion anyway.

It's just mindless idiot fun.

I note that you have still not posted your code for the TSP.  I will
say that one of your more creative passtimes is devising reasons why
you do not implement your ideas.  You factoring ideas were going to
have major economic effects so you did not implement them.  Your TSP
solution will attract other people to dilute your glory if you
actually code it.

If it's right I don't have to code it. Just like if my factoring
research is right I don't have to implement it.

That rather negates the point of picking easily tested areas like
factoring or the TSP.  I thought that the whole point was that by
producing a working and tested program you could avoid the problems
you were having with getting your proofs accepted.  You seem to be
racing up to the finish line and then finding reasons not to cross it.

rossum

It's called a reality test.

I put out ideas which I think are good and expect that if they are
other people around the world will use them.

So there is no pressure on me to do anything else at all, as if I'm
right, someone in the world will exploit the research.

So I'm in goof off mode.

Feel fine about chatting though.


James Harris

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

If it's right I don't have to code it. Just like if my factoring
research is right I don't have to implement it.

But this is the dilemma: we have no a priori reason to believe that it's
right. You have given no proofs of correctness, whether formal or
informal. The burden is not on us to show that you're right, it is on
you. I don't trust any algorithm I generate to be right; I have to feed
it a few cases that look edgy, and then I have to give my code a test
suite to test those edge cases.

Also, your algorithms tend to be underspecified making finding code that
breaks it difficult, because it's hard to know what will happen next.
Code, or pseudocode at the very least, is a powerful way to explain in
full specificity how an algorithm operates.

So, before you can show that it is right, you essentially have to code
it. Resistance to this fact is...pointless. People would complain a lot
less if you had code, people would be more inclined to help, and it's
not like you're writing anything near the complexity of [looks at latest
project] a Java decompiler, so you can't seriously not code just because
it's too hard.

I put out ideas which I think are good and expect that if they are
other people around the world will use them.

So there is no pressure on me to do anything else at all, as if I'm
right, someone in the world will exploit the research.

Translation: I'm a genius, my work is perfect, you're all just too
stupid to realize that.

Rebuttal: If you think that merely /positing/ that the algorithm is
correct will get people to integrate it in their work, you're wrong. TSP
is a well-established problem space, that has many "good enough"
algorithms. With this in mind, a polynomial-time algorithm would only be
of interest if it was correct. So you have to end up showing correctness
yourself, which you are surprisingly loath to do...

 

[Rotwang]

You mean explain why Newton is considered to be as great a scientist
as he is?

No, I know full well why Newton is considered great. I was replying to
your claim that:

Remember, I said that while Galileo had pioneered experimentation
Newton re-invented the university as people tended to talk rather than
experiment.

Sir Isaac Newton was at Cambridge University. Are you saying your
books cites experiments by someone at Cambridge?

No. But then there is no mention of Cambridge in the part I quote
above, so this is a pathetically transparent attempt at bait-and-
switch on your part. It cites experiments by people at other
universities - Robert Boyle for example, who performed experiments at
Oxford before Newton even went to university (I don't know whether any
of those were specifically related to electricity though). There are
much earlier examples of people experimenting at universities, such as
Roger Bacon.

Anyway, following Daniele's post, this is my last reply on the subject.

 

[JSH]

If it's right I don't have to code it.  Just like if my factoring
research is right I don't have to implement it.

But this is the dilemma: we have no a priori reason to believe that it's
right. You have given no proofs of correctness, whether formal or
informal. The burden is not on us to show that you're right, it is on
you. I don't trust any algorithm I generate to be right; I have to feed
it a few cases that look edgy, and then I have to give my code a test
suite to test those edge cases.

Also, your algorithms tend to be underspecified making finding code that
breaks it difficult, because it's hard to know what will happen next.
Code, or pseudocode at the very least, is a powerful way to explain in
full specificity how an algorithm operates.

So, before you can show that it is right, you essentially have to code
it. Resistance to this fact is...pointless. People would complain a lot
less if you had code, people would be more inclined to help, and it's
not like you're writing anything near the complexity of [looks at latest
project] a Java decompiler, so you can't seriously not code just because
it's too hard.

I put out ideas which I think are good and expect that if they are
other people around the world will use them.

So there is no pressure on me to do anything else at all, as if I'm
right, someone in the world will exploit the research.

Translation: I'm a genius, my work is perfect, you're all just too
stupid to realize that.

Rebuttal: If you think that merely /positing/ that the algorithm is
correct will get people to integrate it in their work, you're wrong. TSP
is a well-established problem space, that has many "good enough"
algorithms. With this in mind, a polynomial-time algorithm would only be
of interest if it was correct. So you have to end up showing correctness
yourself, which you are surprisingly loath to do...

I do things like track Google search results.

For instance, the phrase "definition of mathematical proof" did not
always bring up my definition highly.

That took time. And now I'm #2 behind only the Wikipedia.

Currently I'm on in Google for "traveling salesman problem" at 81,
which is better than last week.

As the months go by that may move up, and eventually I might be in the
top 10.

My math blog currently gets hits from over 40 countries per month
though most of those are the US and Great Britain, and I can see
roughly how many people are reading over my optimal path algorithm
ideas, as well as I have Google Group for my optimal path engine and
the Google Code project and I get stats from it.

So posting here is a sideshow which has nothing in my mind with
getting the algorithm out there, though I am also offering the chance
for people to sign on to the project so I am advertising here more or
less for that reason along with just goofing off.

My math blog this year will get thousands of hits from over 80
countries.

I do not have to worry about publicizing my research.

As a math researcher I may be one of the most widely read in the
world. As an amateur math researcher, oh, I don't know, but I'd think
I'm one of the most read in the world.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

No, I know full well why Newton is considered great. I was replying to
your claim that:




No. But then there is no mention of Cambridge in the part I quote
above, so this is a pathetically transparent attempt at bait-and-
switch on your part. It cites experiments by people at other
universities - Robert Boyle for example, who performed experiments at
Oxford before Newton even went to university (I don't know whether any
of those were specifically related to electricity though). There are
much earlier examples of people experimenting at universities, such as
Roger Bacon.

Cambridge especially was kind of a backwater and Oxford had the edge
back then, but still experimentation hadn't really set in as THE way
to go, before Newton revolutionized the university.

Anyway, following Daniele's post, this is my last reply on the subject.

Good.


James Harris

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

I do things like track Google search results.

This is what Google tracks: how well-connected the results are. It
doesn't track the quality of the results. It doesn't track who has the
most popular program. Just how well-connected the results are. Stop
assuming otherwise.

So having results on a site like Blogger or SourceForge,
well-established, heavily-linked sites is going to boost your ratings
more than if it were on your personally-hosted webpage.

So the fact that "Class Viewer" puts you above MS's product is merely a
fact that your result is more public than MS. It's not impressive, and
quite frankly, it's rather pointless.

Experiment: Remove it from sourceforge, put it on a personal web-hosted
site and see how high it gets. Or, if you'd rather, I'll count your blog
posts about it. Ignoring your two sourceforge results, you'd be at spots
11 and 12, below all the things you praise yourself as being above.
Also, judging by your sourceforge download statistics and the
freedownloadscenter statistics, it seems the case that your program
isn't the most popular result...

 

[JSH]

This is what Google tracks: how well-connected the results are. It
doesn't track the quality of the results. It doesn't track who has the
most popular program. Just how well-connected the results are. Stop
assuming otherwise.

So having results on a site like Blogger or SourceForge,
well-established, heavily-linked sites is going to boost your ratings
more than if it were on your personally-hosted webpage.

So the fact that "Class Viewer" puts you above MS's product is merely a
fact that your result is more public than MS. It's not impressive, and
quite frankly, it's rather pointless.

I've debated with myself for years, as in yes, literally years, what
is the significance of the high ranking. The ease with which you
dismiss it simply shows bias.

I'm actually not sure what it means.

I can tell you that I've had that #1 for 3 years. And that I've had
it consistently on Google but on Yahoo! it has gone away at times and
come back.

There is also a "class viewer" for World of Warcraft which has at
times looked like it might take over, but never made it.

And your dismissal of Microsoft having their own "class viewer"
for .NET which can't compete with mine for Java is just kind of weird.

Oh yeah, there's some other commercial program called "class viewer"
for something or other that can't win either.

Then again, hit counts to my page are very low.

Maybe only Google and Yahoo! can really explain the ranking.

But I've had weirder ones. Like for a long time I had: superman plot
idea

Typing that into Google without quotes would give a webpage on a blog
of mine that had, yup, a plot idea for a new Superman movie.

Now THAT high ranking REALLY bugged me. It just made no sense to me.
It's gone now, thankfully, as I figured out a way to kill it.

Experiment: Remove it from sourceforge, put it on a personal web-hosted
site and see how high it gets. Or, if you'd rather, I'll count your blog
posts about it. Ignoring your two sourceforge results, you'd be at spots
11 and 12, below all the things you praise yourself as being above.
Also, judging by your sourceforge download statistics and the
freedownloadscenter statistics, it seems the case that your program
isn't the most popular result...

It's open source. There is no way to know exactly how popular it is
just from download statistics, but I will say that all the stats I
have don't show a very popular program!

So it's a mystery to me.

The program has official downloads of about 2,500 per year, which is
nothing.

I can't remove it from SourceForge, and even asking that indicates
you're not into open source, or if you are, you know nothing about
SourceForge. Or maybe I could delete it from there, I guess maybe I
could, but... Well, I'm not going to delete it from SourceForge.

I've been considering these issues for YEARS now, as I seem to be able
to get a lot of things rated very highly in search engines.

Oh, here's one for you. Do a search in Google on the following:

prime number compression

You might also do a search on prime counting function where you will
see my posts on this newsgroup have managed to stay in the top 10.
They were kind of taking it over but have since slid down.

It's a dynamic process that is fascinating to watch though I debate
with myself the meaning of it.

The weirdest by far is the one you continually glide past which is
"definition of mathematical proof". Google that one in quotes.

Oh yeah, as I pointed out to you, replying to me does not diminish my
impact.

I don't know why I run into people who think that replying to me a lot
is a strategy.

The BEST strategy is to not reply at all. Let me put up a thread that
has no replies and then see what happens.


James Harris

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

This is what Google tracks: how well-connected the results are. It
doesn't track the quality of the results. It doesn't track who has the
most popular program. Just how well-connected the results are. Stop
assuming otherwise.

My web page on debug strategy became top of the Google search for its
title soon after I wrote it, and is still there several years later.

I think I know why. I have a habit of posting a link to it each time I
see a newsgroup question that suggests that the poster does not know how
to approach non-trivial debug. Indeed, I wrote the web page in order to
have an answer for those questions. My postings have a side effect of
creating links to the web page from several well-connected archives of
Java discussions.

In any case, I feel this whole discussion of Google rankings and
achievements is irrelevant and pointless. I don't think argument from
authority has any place in newsgroups with very few exceptions, and
those exceptions are so obvious that resumes do not need to be discussed.

The only thing that would convince me that JSH has an algorithm for TSP
would be a clearly defined algorithm for TSP with an associated proof of
correctness. I would be interested if he ever posted a good attempt, a
clearly described algorithm with no obvious, small counter-examples.

Patricia

 

[JSH]

Guess he published the book much later then...

<quote>
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (pronounced /?nju¢ƒt?n/; 4 January 1643 °© 31
March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 °© 20 March 1726])[1] was an English
physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist
and theologian. His Philosophi©° Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in
the history of science.
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.

Didn't you say you have a degree in physics?

And from WHAT country?  Oh yeah, wasn't it some place in Great
Britain?  Cambridge was it?

Care to explain yourself Mr. "Rotwang"?

Ever heard of William Gilbert?  1544-1603?  Last I checked, 1603 is
earlier than 1643, therefore we can conclude that Gilbert's experiments
with electrostatics came before Newton.

I never said that no one else experimented before Newton.

I said that at Cambridge doctors of philosophy, talked before Newton.

He revolutionized the university.

That point was lost as "Rotwang" instead interpreted my statements as
saying no one experimented before Sir Isaac Newton, despite my mention
of Galileo who died before Newton was born.

And hey, guess what--Gilbert's experiments are described in Priestly's
book.

For those who wonder, yes, yet another sci.math'er but at least you
can get some sense of how arguments often went on that newsgroup!

People there seize on something that suits what they wish to believe,
and then they go on and on.


James Harris