/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8780997
No the fucking didn't!

You certainly didn't refute that, you just ad homed both of us (there were two anons in that selection), after having the audacity to claim you don't and didn't ad hom!

Fucking... fuck... asdasdjaskda

If P=NP then NP=P and P=Q to the 2^ of R-4.

>>8204231
Universe is uniform, why shouldn't it be?

>>8202772
There are several ways around this, just get more creative and be happy a paywall is stopping scrubs from gaining access where you're marginally smart enough to be able to.

>>8185597
So, you're a prescriptivst grammarian, I'm a descriptivist. Nice attempt, try harder.

Real numbers sit on a one-dimensional real line.
Extend this line with one extra dimension and you get a two-dimensional complex space. You still have all the real numbers but now you can move along the complex dimension as well.

I propose a new test of smartness to replace the useless and highly arbitrary IQ scale.

I got this idea by thinking about Turing machines. I figured if we can determine the computational capability of a machine, we could apply the same principles to humans.

I start with a postulate that a smart person is distinguished from a non-smart person by the level of their learning capabilities.

It all boils down to this very simple idea. A person is smart if they can learn anything _learnable_.

To determine if a person is smart or not, the following test is proposed:
- evaluate the person to determine the skills they have acquired so far
- pick a number of random skills that the person has not learned thus far, and are completely unrelated to their skills so far
- determine time required to acquire each skill to a degree of technical proficiency
- put the person in a controlled environment with enough time to absorb skills
- when the time runs out, perform a test

If the person has learned each proposed unrelated skill to a degree of proficiency, that person is deemed "smart", which means that they can learn anything that is learnable.

Comments, suggestions?