• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Are you stupid?? Take the Test.....

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
OSU_Buckguy;773704; said:
i see your attempts to change what you've claimed, but i'm not buying them. let's remember your initial statement:
what you don't understand is that this statement is what i've been combating the whole time. you changed your claims along the way to cover yourself.
Click to expand...

:slappy: An obvious case of suspension of disbelief... this is just getting hilarious now.

Here's my original post, for the record. Obviously I've been consistent throughout, and even restated my position in simple terms for you once -- and you tried to act all high and mighty about that.
May the record also show that none of the posts I quoted earlier were edited.

23Skidoo;773604; said:
While the original test in this thread wasn't very rigorous (or draconian if you prefer...), that test isn't actually that great. I suppose if you're an English teacher it's great... but all it really tests is the level of rote memorization you have. There are a couple of words in there that you would probably only know through history and derive the etymology thus -- but that's still just straight "knowledge".
Of course, that is an important component to any test -- but it's just one part. I'm sure Joyce would score off the charts though. :biggrin:

FWIW, I got 155 -- which is in keeping with other standardized tests on the English language (60-75%).
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;773619; said:
actually, numerous studies find a high correlation between vocabulary size and general intelligence. even twins studies strengthen the argument that vocabulary and general intelligence are highly correlated. though it is the case that vocabulary is primarily learned by rote, it is also the case that most persons who have sizable vocabularies are actively self-motivated to learn uncommon words. furthermore, this test--if it were used to test actual general intelligence--would not be administered to those who prepared for it.

oh, i don't prefer "draconian."
Click to expand...

Gee, a guy who is a self-professed grammar and vocab nerd saying a vocab test is a great test of intelligence. :roll1:

I've heard that knowledge of state capitals and college football mascots is a great test of intelligence as well.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;773998; said:
Gee, a guy who is a self-professed grammar and vocab nerd saying a vocab test is a great test of intelligence. :roll1:

I've heard that knowledge of state capitals and college football mascots is a great test of intelligence as well.
Click to expand...

themoreyouknow705722.jpg
 
Upvote 0
sandgk;773509; said:
Perhaps it is worth mentioning for the casual reader that either sequence 1,1, 2, OR 0, 1, 1, 2 .. is itself a Fibonacci sequence. The question then becomes which one is the "Original" Fibonacci sequence?

Perhaps it is the manner in which it was taught to me and you respectively.

Perhaps it is the manner in which it is now remembered.

Whatever the case may be there are apparently two accepted versions of the original sequence.

One leans on the rabbits problem in Fibonacci's book of teaching problems (Liber Abaci). The other which I was taught, has Fibonacci much like this:

470072226d1629b5b6b973f1881b2051.png


Thus the 0, 1, 1, 2 sequence.

I must candidly admit I also favor this precisely because it places at the beginning the Arabic zero - which Leonardo helped introduce into Western culture.
Click to expand...

I also happen to teach mathematics and just this week in my Calculus 2 class, I introduced infinite sequences and the Fibonacci sequence.

I can tell you that mathematically, the first two terms of the Fibonacci sequence are 1. Technically speaking, or from accepted mathematical definitions, sequences are functions of the positive integers and since 0 is not a positive integer, the piece-wise defined function you listed is a valid function for a sequence since 0 is included in the domain.

This is exactly why I do not like what you prefer, since it doesn't follow the accepted definition of what a sequence really is.

To put it in other words for the casual reader, a sequence is an ordered arrangement of objects (where those objects are usually numbers!) so there is a 1st object, a 2nd object, a 3rd object, and so on. Listing the presidents of the US in chronological order is really a sequence. Looking at it this way, there is no "zero" object; we had a 1st president of the US but not a "0th" president of the US. This informal look at the definition of a sequence shows why the formal mathematical definition of a sequence states that it is a function of the positive integers (or counting numbers if you prefer), hence why I do not prefer the "definition" of the Fibonacci sequence you showed here.
 
Upvote 0
buckiprof;774058; said:
I also happen to teach mathematics and just this week in my Calculus 2 class, I introduced infinite sequences and the Fibonacci sequence.

I can tell you that mathematically, the first two terms of the Fibonacci sequence are 1. Technically speaking, or from accepted mathematical definitions, sequences are functions of the positive integers and since 0 is not a positive integer, the piece-wise defined function you listed is a valid function for a sequence since 0 is included in the domain.

This is exactly why I do not like what you prefer, since it doesn't follow the accepted definition of what a sequence really is.

To put it in other words for the casual reader, a sequence is an ordered arrangement of objects (where those objects are usually numbers!) so there is a 1st object, a 2nd object, a 3rd object, and so on. Listing the presidents of the US in chronological order is really a sequence. Looking at it this way, there is no "zero" object; we had a 1st president of the US but not a "0th" president of the US. This informal look at the definition of a sequence shows why the formal mathematical definition of a sequence states that it is a function of the positive integers (or counting numbers if you prefer), hence why I do not prefer the "definition" of the Fibonacci sequence you showed here.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity what is the non-piecewise expression for the fibonacci (I'm familiar w/calc expressions so whatever is useful can work) ?
I'd also like to say that it drives me nuts that 0! = 1. Depending on how you express factorials [specifically as a sum of (n)*(n-1)*...*(1)], I suppose 0! has to be 1 (or else everything would be 0) but I've always wondered if there's a better way to write it.
Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment.
 
Upvote 0
23Skidoo;774069; said:
Just out of curiosity what is the non-piecewise expression for the fibonacci (I'm familiar w/calc expressions so whatever is useful can work) ?
I'd also like to say that it drives me nuts that 0! = 1. Depending on how you express factorials [specifically as a sum of (n)*(n-1)*...*(1)], I suppose 0! has to be 1 (or else everything would be 0) but I've always wondered if there's a better way to write it.
Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment.
Click to expand...

The recrusively defined way for Fibonacci is (and here I will use 'sub' to mean subscript): fsub1 = 1, fsub2 = 1, fsubn = fsubn-1 + fsubn-2

As for 0! = 1, which was discussed in my class yesterday, most folks simply say that 0! = 1 by definition, which is true. I try to give some meaning behind the definition via the following. First, we simply (n + 1)!/n! = n + 1.
While that is a nice little example, and an important skill for later work with infinite series, I then ask my students to substitute n = 0 into
(n + 1)!/n! = n + 1. After said substitution, you get 1!/0! = 1. To maintain the "truth" of the equation, it seems reasonable that 0! = 1. For my students, that seems to help them accept the definition that 0! = 1. I know when I first saw this stuff, I was just told 0! = 1 by definition. It bothered me, it bothered me even more that my professor couldn't come with the example I just listed to give some believability to the definition!
 
Upvote 0
Your Score Summary​
Overall, you scored as follows:​
score_bar.php
99% scored higher (more stupid),
1% scored the same, and
0% scored lower (less stupid).​
You are 0% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.​
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top