However, don’t you think its just a little bit dishonest to resort to censorship?

If it so offends you Terry to even mention the – shall we say – “elephant in the room” – then why don’t you just make a public statement distancing yourself from it? How hard is it to simply state somewhere on this page that:

“Claims by others of my IQ of 230 are not made by or supported by myself”.

You could even just leave this little post of mine in tacit rebuttal of the gross public statistical misrepresentation tacitly attributed to you. Then I could at least say to the people who make these ludicrous claims about you that you neither confirm or deny them.

The status quo however, is that since the Guinness Book of Records stopped listing “Highest IQ”, the people (especially mathematicians) who still permit these statistically invalid claims about themselves to circulate in the public mind leave themselves open to public statements exposing them, in the public interest.

It is not in the public interest to ignore the psychological issues surrounding giftedness, as you do, by pursuing an agenda of academic elitism.

It would very much be in the public interest if you would kindly therefore furnish the public with a statement to which they may be referred regarding the discredited use of a statistically (ie mathematically) invalid high IQ score being associated with your name.

]]>I have invented the decomposition into weight × level + jump that is an extension of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic :

arXiv:0711.0865 [math.NT] : https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0865

or the OEIS Wiki page : https://oeis.org/wiki/Decomposition_into_weight_*_level_%2B_jump

I’d like your feedback,

Best,

-The more abstract our principal values are the more effective we can utilize our I.Q.

-The more complex they are the more efficient we can utilize our I.Q. (providing the problem at hands does not provoke any conflict among such variables)

I view I.Q. as Utility, what matters are what we stand for and how authentic and true we are principal values. ]]>

I think i have lost the taste for life. Everything, and mostly everyone, seems really bland for me. I started to obsess with the concept of general intelligence and how almost every skill and trait i used to value are correlated with it. Like for example creativity, personality and empathy, that recent theories shows that are way more linked to general intelligence than we used to thought.

Now its really hard for me to see people differences as something unique or special, it looks like flaws that are rooted in their incapability of developing certain skills due to their low intelligence. Life doesn’t feel beautiful anymore, with multiple layers of complexity and various ways for people to be different and valuable.

As a consequence, my self esteem is no existent and for example the relationship with my gf, which i was really proud of, looks shallow and extremely liked to our intelligence, because everything that is good looks to be linked to general intelligence. Income, happiness, stable marriage, empathy and so on.

Working as a engineer really made things worsts. It’s almost like anything matters but the ability to solve the problem at hand that is practically 100% of the time solved by the most intelligent person on our group.

I know this is a very reductionist mindset, but i am not finding myself able to change it and its pretty much destroying my life. I also think this is a more modern problem, that was born with the concept of I.Q. and G Factor and the findings that support these theories, but nevertheless i find myself in such a depressive state that i wan’t to ask if you can give me any advice that can help me see this issue at another perspective.

Recently a new state of water was apparantly discovered:

https://www.ornl.gov/news/ornl-researchers-discover-new-state-water-molecule

I am writing to inquire, if you will be involved in the follow up work, to explore ie. the potential for a water based quantum computer. ( I am currently looking at a video with some of your thoughts on fluid computing at https://youtu.be/DgmuGqeRTto)

Personally I would hope that a large multidisciplinary group of people would gather soon to discuss water, and the many potentials it has, as energy source (H+O), energy storage (electrolysis) ect., as computational fluid to name a few.

Any thoughts you may have will be most welcome.

]]>thank you for your question…

if you look only for twin-primes… you have a lot to do… because they don’t have any constant sequence… therefore if you wish to have an easy way… with what you can also build the geometric shapes… you must also use the non-primes…

thank you…

TaoChi

Similar to infinite number of primes proof, take the set of first N primes 2, 3, 5,..,Pn

(2*3*5*..*Pn) +1 will be a prime number since it is not divisible by any of the prime numbers

Wouldn’t that be the same case for (2*3*5*..*Pn) -1 as well?

Doesn’t that prove there is infinite number of twin primes?

Thank you,

Anu

thank you for your question…

everything in the nature is created by cycles and patterns… and in math is also everything created by cycles and patterns…

like… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9… 1…

like… 1 3 6 1 6 3 1 9 9… 1…

like… 1 2 4 8 7 5… 1…

like… 1 1 2 3 5 8 4 3 7 1 8 9 8 8 7 6 4 1 5 6 2 8 1 9… 1…

like… 1 4 9 7 7 9 4 1 9… 1…

etc…

so… if you don’t have cycles… you also don’t have patterns… and therefore we need by the primes… also non-primes… if we wish to have the cycles and patterns…

like… 1 5 7 2 4 8… 1…

if we do not join also the non-primes… like… 25… 35… 49… 55… etc… we interrupt the cycles and patterns…

and therefore Cicada’s have their own cycles and patterns… like everything else… in the nature…

TaoChi

]]>Do you have some information about a mathematician called Giovanni Gallavotti? Is he an important researcher in Mathematical Physics? ]]>