Much has shifted in the search for knowledge because of the ease with which a person can share knowledge gained. Like on this blog have plenty of mathematical results. And can from objective sources get a feel for the global interest.
For this blog according to Google Analytics, which is a source have used for somewhere around a decade, there were visits from 66 countries so far this year. And that is from 746 cities, with people using 55 languages. Where just read from what the application told me as went to it for this post.
And thanks for the interest! Should acknowledge my appreciation to those visiting here from all over the world. My focus is on the primary reason being--useful information.
Of course there is also question of official recognition of some kind which with me has only happened once with a paper which was published, and then things got wild as a chief editor tried to just delete out after. But have told that story SO MUCH, as yeah worked at processing.
So how can there be such a disparity? Well the answer is that math actually moves best on USE and that was more difficult to track--in the past. Which meant establishment sources were the best bet for trying to guess at what mathematics was actually doing out there. But that was so much about a gathering of people most passionate--in the past. In our times? Is debatable what establishment represents.
But also in our times, if you have math ideas? And you put them on the web? Then conceivably you can get objective data from others who are trustworthy sources to get a feel for how your mathematics is moving around the planet. That does free a researcher from the establishment.
It has occurred to me the establishment may not like that reality.
Would rather have objective evidence than to me, empty accolades, as how do they know really? And who are they, often? Reality of attention to your mathematics from those who toss out awards or whatever are rivals, with grudging approval dragged out of people who should wonder why they didn't figure out instead. They can be forced to know YOU because of what you DID figure out that they did not. If they aren't rivals then maybe then they think are better than you, but with what mathematics?
Objective reality does not care about social things--at ALL. Either the math works, or it does not.
Either the math is an improvement or it is not.
Wonder if is still taught that reality. Maybe is too harsh to admit to students such honest rivalry or the brutal reality check that no matter what you do, if your math is not good enough it is like you did nothing at all?
The solidity potential of mathematics can make competition stark. Few winners with absolute truths, but so many trying.
In our times you can have some mathematical discoverer cheered by community, which is actually tiny if you consider a planet of billions, whose work just does not move outside some small circles. But his buddies, as is often a male, like him. How far will that make math move? If not actually useful? Not far at all.
Is just easier to check in our times.
In the past might have been enough for much more in mathematics--being well liked.
You cannot compete with someone like me on the accolades of people like you. Their praise is as worthless to me as yours, if your math discovery does not justify interest.
If you need praise but somehow convince yourself you are into discovery, then maybe you really should go into some other area, like politics? Or entertainment? Because the math does not care.
Does push mathematics as a discipline BACK to hard, objectivity without delusions of importance of celebrity.
Mathematics is about logic, consistency, and absolute truth at best.
Humans can make into something else for a time, and call flawed ideas mathematics, but what works keeps pulling back the body of accepted mathematical ideas to better. Math is just SO useful.
More and more I think people are learning to trust objective data and my story helps! We need facts.
Web helps there as well. Readily admit started checking more to be aware of what happens--after the news fades. Can be a pressure to just chase after the latest without watching people over time. Web is really great there, as long after news organizations have moved on, you can consider what a person is doing, or not. If they do anything on the web. But also you can usually especially with academics at least keep up with where are working, or not, if is at a university.
Reality is, the rush of attention can fade so rapidly. While for me? Have been pondering global attention levels for over a decade now. Is just SO steady which puzzled me for years. Realized had been trained wrong. Human interest builds over time with math. People keep building more things in actuality. So yeah, is the actual way.
The math becomes more in demand as is proven in the minds of more as they use, and the need continues to grow, as humanity continues to progress.
And you can have someone like me, who is global on a scale few humans can actually comprehend, which I say as have worked for YEARS at trying.
But yeah, I invented a new math discipline, where the math does algebra demonstrably better than any human. Discovered for the world a new primary way to calculate the modular inverse. And even figured out the 'why' of the connection between counts of prime numbers and continuous functions like x/ln x. Among other big things actually but just grabbed for a few quick cool ones.
Try to compare with someone else's discovery in the 21st century. I know I don't even bother.
So yeah, the Google Analytics data is probably an underestimate, which is ok. I like to use as a baseline.
Math moves when useful. Human interest is so much about what works. And with the web, in our times, you can watch human interest pull that needed knowledge.
Is a great thing really. Your discovery? Can MOVE, and YOU can watch.