Not jerking your chain or trolling at all.

I know; it's possible to set up a corporation so that I have investors but control all the voting stock so that, then, really, the BoD can't fire me. But doing that would be a constant fight; I would be inviting into my company some potential enemies and would spend a huge fraction of my time, money, and energy fighting them. They would be there for themselves and trying to take from me. Easy solution: Don't invite them into the company. They don't want me now, and when they do I won't want them.

I'm going to stay a sole, solo founder.

Some people in business have been successful doing that. I know some, and one of them, whom I don't know, is sitting in the White House now. Indeed, from the time I spent in yacht clubs, nearly all the members did that -- sole, solo founders, a family company, private company, no VC/PE or other outside investors, no public corporation.

My point about how much people hate math lectures with theorems and proofs is exactly correct.

Then the scenario of the BoD rushing to the toilets and convening in a bar, getting drunk, and firing me is only a slight exaggeration for what would likely happen.

E.g., I'd be like that guy in Scion Capital in the book and movie The Big Short and Billy Beane in the book and movie Money Ball. They were both right and for the right reasons, but they nearly got shot down by skeptics. Indeed, the skeptics or their skepticism was the cause of much of the opportunities.

My views of Sand Hill Road versus DoD, NSF, NIH, NASA, DoE is literally, rock solidly true. DoD, etc. will invest in some applied math and mathematical physics, e.g., the US Navy's version of GPS (I worked in that group for a while), and Sand Hill Road just will not; they won't even consider original, powerful, valuable, advanced applied math. I have hundreds of e-mail messages proving that.

You seem to have wanted an "elevator pitch". Okay:

As has been clear going way back in information retrieval, key words do well in only about 1/3rd of the content on the Internet, searches people want to do, and results they want to find. I'm going for the other 2/3rds. Sufficient for this, I've derived some original applied math based on some advanced, pure math prerequisites, written the production quality code, and am rushing to go live. The math makes powerful progress on the challenging problem of the meaning of the content. The work stands to be of intense interest to nearly everyone in the world with access to the Internet via any device from a smartphone up to a high end workstation. First I will target users in the US and then Europe and then target the rest of the world as there are revenue opportunities.

That's just what I've done and am doing.
Nothing could be more simple or true.

The main issue is the math, but the set of people in a position to understand the math and with confidence to see its power is really tiny. Even among the best trained Ph.D. mathematicians, the prerequisites are not well known.

From my Ph.D. work, but NOT from my time at IBM's Watson lab, I know some people with the prerequisites. When I did original work building on those prerequisites, those people liked my work right away. When I went to publish, my work was published right away. Now should I explain my original work, those people would think for a few days and then say something like "Nice. Right, that should work.". I was confident in my research then, and I'm equally confident now.

Much of the confidence comes from theorems and proofs -- I've always liked those because they have saved my skin many times since no math teacher or prof has ever been able to find anything wrong with my correct proofs, and after I had started to learn the material, my proofs were correct. Maybe the teachers/profs hated me; it was clear that some of them did; maybe they wanted to laugh at me, and too often did, like you do and like the people in those two movies did; but they can't find anything wrong with my proofs. If I were not confident, then I wouldn't be doing this.

I got into math and science partly because in high school the teachers had to give me A's in math and science. In English and history, the best I could do was get social promotion. In college I saw that math and science looked far and away like the best subjects for a good career. Early in my career, in applied math and computing on national security problems near DC, I saw more value in math and did a lot of independent study of both pure and applied math. Then I got a Ph.D. in applied math with a lot in pure math -- some of my publications can be regarded as both pure and applied.

For competition, just for the prerequisites, people would have to study and learn brilliant work in math going back 200+ years or reinvent that material. The studying is too hard for all but a tiny fraction of the population and reinventing is much harder, essentially impossible. The people Sand Hill Road likes to back haven't studied the material, won't, and certainly won't reinvent it. Then they'd be faced with my original work. Nope: I don't expect competition.

That's just the way the project is. Seems entirely reasonable to me. But you want to laugh at it. Hmm ....