Leaderboard

IQ tests measure how good you are at doing IQ tests. IQ tests were developed for people with severe cognitive issues and the tests helped the concerned staff assess their needs. It told them where their patients have specific problems. They weren't designed to say how brilliant you are.

To gain true understanding of a subject it can help to study its origins and how its theory and practice changed over the years – and the mathematical field of calculus is no exception. But calculus students who do read accounts of its history encounter something strange – the claim that the theory which underpinned the subject for long after its creation was wrong and that it was corrected several hundred years later, in spite of the fact that the original theory never produced erroneous results. I argue here that both this characterization of the original theory and this interpretation of the paradigm shift to its successor are false. Infinitesimals, used properly, were never unrigorous and the supposed rigor of limit theory does not imply greater correctness, but rather the (usually unnecessary) exposition of hidden deductive steps. Furthermore those steps can, if set out, constitute a proof that original infinitesimals work in accordance with limit theory – contrary to the common opinion that the two approaches represent irreconcilable philosophical positions. This proof, demonstrating that we can adopt a unified paradigm for calculus, is to my knowledge novel although its logic may have been employed in another context. I also claim that non-standard analysis (the most famous previous attempt at unification) only partially clarified the situation because the type of infinitesimals it uses are critically different from original infinitesimals. See here for the paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1901.0134. Comments welcome!

The same could be said for Chemistry tests. Just how well does a chemistry test judge the chemistry knowledge of the dyslexic, blind, person who never used a pen, etc.

Yes. But what, exactly, does it let you judge? For example, how well does it judge the intelligence of the dyslexic ones? The blind ones? Those for whom it's not in their first language? Those who have never used a pen before? In all those cases, what it measures is their ability to do an IQ test. And, as you point out, that's partly down to practice rather than innate ability. So, what use is it? Well, it doe a fair job of what it was originally intended for- but that's it. There's this, which is pretty close https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford–Binet_Intelligence_Scales But, obviously, it's not for everybody- not least because it's in English. So, what it measures is... how well you do in this test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford–Binet_Intelligence_Scales

It's kinda like saying "1000 meters running exam is measure how good you are at running", or "push-up fitness exam is measure how good you are at push-ups". I don't fully agree with it. They can show general condition of organism. If exactly the same test is given to group of people, it allows classifying them and objectively judge. The problem with I.Q. tests is that there is no uniform I.Q. test for everybody. And on-line I.Q. tests were in majority made by people who created them just to earn money from ads (downgraded and uncontrolled quality of tests). If somebody has problems with concentration, it'll be revealed on exam. If somebody has problems with abstract thinking, it'll be revealed on exam. Obviously the more somebody trains, no matter if it is push-ups, running, or intelligence tests, the better person is at such exams the next time. But if somebody learned how to solve tests, it means new connections in his/her brain were created, and such person better thinks abstractly. Brain training might be useful outside of just I.Q.tests, similar like training running is influencing human health, just in different area.

https://newatlas.com/brightest-quasar-600-trillion-suns/58020/ From our point of view here on Earth, the brightest object in the sky is unquestionably the Sun. But this unremarkable star is a mere 10-watt bulb compared to quasars, extremely luminous galactic cores that shine so intensely thanks to their ravenous hunger for nearby material. Now, astronomers have detected the brightest quasar ever found, shining with the light of almost 600 trillion Suns. The quasar, officially designated J043947.08+163415.7, pips the previous brightness records by a fair margin. Until now the title belonged to a quasar shining with the equivalent of 420 trillion Suns, while the most luminous galaxy found so far is "only" as bright as 350 trillion...more at link <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaf86a Most Lensed Quasars at z > 6 are Missed by Current Surveys: Abstract The discovery of the first strongly lensed (μ ≈ 50) quasar at z > 6 (J0439+1634) represents a breakthrough in our understanding of the early universe. We derive the theoretical consequences of the new discovery. We predict that the observed population of z > 6 quasars should contain many sources with magnifications μ 10 and with image separations below the resolution threshold. Additionally, current selection criteria could have missed a substantial population of lensed z > 6 quasars, due to the contamination of the drop-out photometric bands by lens galaxies. We argue that this predicted population of lensed z > 6 quasars would be misclassified and mixed up with low-z galaxies. We quantify the fraction of undetected quasars as a function of the slope of the bright end of the quasar luminosity function, β. For β 3.6, we predict that the undetected lensed quasars could reach half of the population, whereas for β 4.5 the vast majority of the z > 6 quasar population is lensed and still undetected. This would significantly affect the z > 6 quasar luminosity function and inferred black hole mass distributions, with profound implications for the ultraviolet, X-ray, and infrared cosmic backgrounds and the growth of early quasars.

I doubt if medical schools administer an I.Q. test, in that how well a person performed in undergrad school would be a more useful predictor of how well they would be expected to perform in medical school. However, at one time (I do not know if they still do), the U.S. Army administered a General Technical test (A.K.A., and I.Q. test) and it was used to qualify or disqualify certain advanced individual training (AIT) schools, and as I posted earlier, that score was used to qualify/disqualify recruits for Officer Candidate School (OCS)...I know that from my personal experience in the Army, albeit a long, long time ago. Some jobs (Military Occupational Specialty, "MOS") were menial and did not require a great deal of intelligence. Other MOSs were considered to require more intelligence. The GT scores were more or less the exact score as when a person was scored on an I.Q.test. People may want to dance around with what I.Q. tests were invented for and what they really measure and what other measures are more legitimate, but in regard to the original poster's question, the truth of the matter is the Army did use I.Q. tests and it would require more than an "average" I.Q. Non Sequitur.

The bolded part has to be emphasized as its use has been often misunderstood. It is not a comparative range of values but, in its modern iteration, basically normalizes the range of a population to a normal distribution. Typically high values are of little diagnostic value whereas scoring low can be the first indicator of some learning or other issues. As such a better question would be how low would be prohibitive. Also note that by definition 2/3 of the population fall within 15 of either side of the median.

! Moderator Note Please go blog elsewhere. This is a science discussion forum. If you open up another discussion criticizing a different discussion, you'll be leaving permanently.

The question I've never seen answered is what exactly does Trump, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter want to do with $5 Billion for a "W A L L"? What does their "wall" mean exactly? Is that just the first installment for a 30-foot "wall" that should cost a total of about $50 Billion? Does it include tearing down the tall steel fencing that already exist to replace it with the new improved "steel slats"? Trump already admitted when he visited the wall samples that the current fencing between San Diego and Tijuana is 95% effective. Why not just extend that fencing that already exists for another 100 miles? There is a lot of terrain between the US and Mexico where a wall is impossible, such as along the Rio Grand in Texas, and mountainous or hilly areas where a wall won't work at all. That is where you cannot have a "wall" but rather you can have more technology and patrols, which is what the Democrats want. Before building anything else there should be a complete survey of the border to see exactly where illegals are streaming across, and that is where you improve security. That survey alone may disprove the so-called "crisis" at the border.

I'm looking at a job advertisement from the Indian embassy and the pay is listed like this: Salary (Per month): - Pay Scale (In Euro) - 1225-50-1975-65-2625-3375 - Basic Salary at the Minimum of Scale: Euro 1225 Does anyone have any idea what the heck "1225-50-1975-65-2625-3375" means??? Also, do you suppose this is gross or net? EDIT: Found another ad of theirs and apparently this is something to do with annual increments and max pay.

! Moderator Note Insisting you're right when it's trivially easy to show otherwise is soapboxing, and against the rules. You need to explain and support your ideas rigorously when they conflict with mainstream understanding (it is, after all, a collection of our best current explanations for various phenomena). You've had five pages to do that, and still cling to misunderstandings. Thread closed. Don't bring it up again.

Despite the tough talk from Trump U.S. demand from Chinese product remains high.

I tried reading all the above including some of the math but it just made my head hurt. Look, here are a few thoughts from a person who works in air-conditioning, a lot. Unless you are talking a system I don't know, the ground link is effectively the heat rejection component of the refrigeration cycle. And that's it really. The heat rejection component works equally as well as heat providing - if the temps work and if your refrigeration equipment is reversible. You'll still need a three pipe system if you want heating and cooling at the same time. The ground link would usually presume a heat rejection ground source at approx 16 degrees C. And it can return heat at the same temp personally I'd add a gas boiler but that's a personal choice - For winter cycle I'd like a heat rejection supply temp at say 30 degrees C. But that's just me.

Where did the 150kg in your original equation come from?

No, that is not even close to being the same. I can only guess you've never belonged to a church group.

There’s plenty of evidence that Lorentz is correct. I have no plans to waste time by reading your paper. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

The soul. It is kind of a philosophical conundrum. We live in a universe where information is forever. The atom is, if not indestructible, then at least its components are eternal, if not put through a collider. So the thought of our qualia and personality to likewise be eternal (information) is not that far fetched. If we take some steps further down philosophy lane, we stumble upon the simulation "hypothesis". The idea/ontology that our universe and everything in it is simulated by some super computer made by aliens in another universe. In that scenario our body is just an avatar, and the real substance of us is the complex programming making our personality. Or soul. One could imagine that these aliens might want to save a few copies of us, because they find them interesting. Like Socrates, Einstein and of course me. That could be an afterlife. So, the soul and life after death is really not that far fetched, if you widen your horizon of possibilities. They may not end up in their classical forms, but the general ideas are sustainable. Somewhat.