Makes sense to me now that it can take years to get to a more objective, simplified view of one's own story, especially when you're on the constant figuring things out, as reality slowly unfolds.
With me, now can say took a path of discovery that focused on math, over 20 years ago, for what I thought were pragmatic reasons. Though possibly some part of me figured I'd be good at it.
Almost immediately found what I now know to be one of the great discoveries of mathematics, which was rejected as too simple by an editor at one of the most prestigious math journals out there, which was Proceedings of the AMS. Will NOT link to them. Which was in 1996.
Not surprisingly for these type stories, I kept going, and eventually in 1999, invented an approach because got frustrated chasing after what is commonly called Fermat's Last Theorem. Ran out of ideas, and asked myself, how do I expand possible approaches? And got an answer which I finally realized is my own mathematical discipline.
With that mathematical discipline, found a weird kind of hard to explain flaw at the heart of modern mathematics, which I realized could dramatically demonstrate with a paper, which looks correct by currently accepted rules, but which can be shown to be incorrect by those same rules. And got that paper published.
It went live in 2004, for the last 2003 edition of the journal, and at THAT time, I could have been trumpeted around the globe for one of the most important intellectual discoveries of all time.
(But you knew that, right? How else could some guy be read globally for so long at such a constant if it weren't for things really, well, like that reason? You think people all over a planet pay attention to one person, for no reason? Of course you don't, that would be silly.)
That's not what happened though. At least one editor, who was one emailed me when paper was accepted for publication, was nice and explained somewhat apologetically--yeah think somewhat is accurate, but not very, but the chief editor ran from the result. And I did what people like me do--I kept going.
Oh yeah, but of course, who cares about Fermat's Last Theorem at THAT point? Was a relief actually was like, that isn't even close to important to me now. It did help me go in the direction of figuring out my own math discipline, so that's cool, at least. Oh and finding one of the biggest results of ALL TIME so yeah there is that as well. But otherwise? Who cares.
Also simplified in another big area with prime numbers and gave an answer to one big question, which could lead to solving supposedly one of the greatest mathematical problems unanswered, which the math people didn't like, so they ignored it as well. And it's kind of been like that with many things.
I discover. Others apparently work to ignore.
And I hedge as usual.
With the web emergent, not surprisingly someone like me and the web would end up in a different kind of relationship. Where to me, the web is like a great friend, who is there for me. And we kind of understand each other, I think.
And I have VAST reach. Which I don't explain much any more. Have talked it enough.
So what about the press? I think we still primarily have a 20th century press, in that lots of how they do things, is about how things were BEFORE the web. And that even though they think they're adapting, I'm sure they're not, and monetary pressure will fix the situation, in time.
That is, the press people who cannot switch to 21st century techniques, which actually WOULD make them money, will more and more find it hard to make money. Their organizations will shutter, and they will lose their jobs.
Others will emerge. So worry not, the press will be ok.
Which is a good overview as am back to problem solving, which is why is only label.
James Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment