- #36
Noxide
- 121
- 0
3, 8, 18 , 30, 70, 150 , 300, 690, 1470, ...dumb question
Noxide said:3, 8, 18 , 30, 70, 150 , 300, 690, 1470, ...
dumb question
Dickfore said:would you mind elaborating how you obtained this continuation of the sequence?
Noxide said:A = 3, 8, 18, 30, 70, 150, 300, ... <=> A = a, b, d, e, f, h, i, ...
a = 3 (arbitrary)
b = 8 (arbitrary)
b-a = c
b + 2c = d
e = 10a
f = 10(b-1)
f-e = g
2g + f = h
10e = i
...
i.e. the sequence is uniquely determined by a given a and b such that sequence a, b, c, ... = A
A = a, b, b+2(b-a), 10a, 10(b-1), 2[10(b-1) - 10a] + 10(b-1), 10(10a), 10[10(b-1)], 2{10[10(b-1)]- 10(10)a}, ...
Dickfore said:You can combine your definition of c and d, to eliminate the intermediate value c (and g further on):
[tex]
d = b + 2c = b + 2(b - a) = 3b - 2a
[/tex]
Other than that, you logic seems like stabbing in the dark to find the given answer 150.
Noxide said:Of course I can, and I did: A = a, b, b+2(b-a), 10a, 10(b-1), 2[10(b-1) - 10a] + 10(b-1), 10(10a), 10[10(b-1)], 2{10[10(b-1)]- 10(10)a}, ...
A is defined purely in terms of a and b
How is it stabbing in the dark?
The difference between the first two terms is half the difference between the second and third terms. The sequence has units that are triplets...
Dickfore said:What's the logic for 10(b - 1) in the second term of the second triplet, i.e. 70? If you followed any logic from the previous one, you should have written 80.
Noxide said:Of course I can, and I did: A = a, b, b+2(b-a), 10a, 10(b-1), 2[10(b-1) - 10a] + 10(b-1), 10(10a), 10[10(b-1)], 2{10[10(b-1)]- 10(10)a}, ...
A is defined purely in terms of a and b
How is it stabbing in the dark?
The difference between the first two terms is half the difference between the second and third terms. The sequence has units that are triplets...
The Chaz said:Maybe this is less a dumb question than a dumb answer...?
That this comes from an IQ test is the only justification for considering the (or a) pattern observed in the first three terms and applying that to the next set of three.
This reminds me of the analogy questions on the old SAT. Something like
fish:water::telephone:_______
uart said:That's ok, but the following "triplet" solution is no more (or no less) arbitrary.
3 8 18 : 30 70 2097 : 57 132 7506 :
The third term in each triplet is the product of the previous two terms minus the digit sum (of that product). For example 3*8=24 and 24-2-4 = 18.
The triplets are continued via [itex]T_{3n+1} = T_{3n-2} + 27[/itex] and [itex]T_{3n+2} = T_{3n-1}+62[/itex], starting with T1 = 3 and T2 = 8.
Noxide said:This cannot be the case... You are overlooking an axiom of the sequence. That axiom being the difference between the first two terms of the triplet is half of the difference between the 2nd and third terms of each triplet.
uart said:Not good. You've given a solution to a different problem, or changed the first term in the sequence to make it fit your solution. The first term was supposed to be 3.
Chris11 said:Lol yeah, where has the axiom been postulated? Anyways, you're taking this question far too seriously, and, probably, whatever IQ test you got it from far to seriously as well... IQ tests aren't even supported very well by even those who administer them--except for hi-IQ societies--that arn't scientific. IQ dosen't really tell you much about a person, except for in the extreems, in which case it's unlikly that you're not stupid if you have an IQ of 73, and you're unlikely to be not smart if you have an IQ>125... There's no gurentee. There are people who have IQs above 140 who don't do anything with there lives, lack any significant academic skill, and display no behavior indicitive of intelligence.
shinkyo00 said:What do you mean they're not "supported very well" by those who administer them?
I.Q. tells us exactly the "I.Q." of a person and depending on the test administered, a rating in the qualities that the test's supposed to measure, e.g. cognitive reflex or fluid reasoning, etc. Really though, it's not like we expect it to tell us any more. Otherwise it's like expecting B.M.I. to tell us exactly how well a person will do in a certain sport.
You're absolutely right in stating the fact that some people with I.Q. above 140 who don't achieve anything. However, that's achievement and not "intelligence" as meant by the tests.
It appears in your post you're just ripping on I.Q. testing... =/
You're right. It does tell you what your IQ is. However, my problem with IQ is that IQ has become synomonous with intelligence in popular society.
Further, their precision can be called into question: a person under inhibitions can easily score SDs under their 'actual' IQ level.
Also, it has been shown in longitudial studies that people's IQs can vary by as much as 2 SDs, given valid testing.
No one has an IQ until it is measured, and it's important to keep in mind that these scores are not, as many people believe, inherent properties of the individual being tested.
Also, BMI is actually a more valid measure as it does not rely upon a person's performance on administering the test or writing the test being administered, which are both subject to ENORMOUS fluctuations over the course of as little time as a week.
By 'not supported very well by people who administer them,' I mean that the majority of praticing psychiatrists have little to no faith in IQ testing and its ability to provide a valid measure of intelligence.
Chris11 said:Lol yeah, where has the axiom been postulated? Anyways, you're taking this question far too seriously, and, probably, whatever IQ test you got it from far to seriously as well... IQ tests aren't even supported very well by even those who administer them--except for hi-IQ societies--that arn't scientific. IQ dosen't really tell you much about a person, except for in the extreems, in which case it's unlikly that you're not stupid if you have an IQ of 73, and you're unlikely to be not smart if you have an IQ>125... There's no gurentee. There are people who have IQs above 140 who don't do anything with there lives, lack any significant academic skill, and display no behavior indicitive of intelligence.
alice22 said:"There are people who have IQs above 140 who don't do anything with there lives, lack any significant academic skill, and display no behavior indicitive of intelligence"
Really?
That's a rather sweeping statement!
They are certainly good at getting the right answer in IQ tests, which requires some kind of logical ability assuming the test is a good one.
"don't do anything with their lives"? What are they supposed to do? Run a bank and bankrupt it? Or start a world war?
Maths is academic, hard to see how someone with such a high IQ would be bad at maths.
I doubt anyone with a low IQ would be too good at maths, I would question the maths test or the IQ test if they were.
Maths is pretty precise, the answer is usually not a matter of opinion.
Anyway I don't think there has a been a good answer provided yet, I suspect the question
is a bad or erroneous one, but I would think someone would be able to make a plausible answer that was not massively complicated.
However it is quite a long sequence and each number in it adds another level of complexity.
What it does show I think is that number sequences questions are rather poor IQ questions because the number of possible answers is only limited by your imagination.
Maybe there should be a reward for the first person to solve it!
alice22 said:"There are people who have IQs above 140 who don't do anything with there lives, lack any significant academic skill, and display no behavior indicitive of intelligence"
Really?
That's a rather sweeping statement!
They are certainly good at getting the right answer in IQ tests, which requires some kind of logical ability assuming the test is a good one.
"don't do anything with their lives"? What are they supposed to do? Run a bank and bankrupt it? Or start a world war?
Maths is academic, hard to see how someone with such a high IQ would be bad at maths.
I doubt anyone with a low IQ would be too good at maths, I would question the maths test or the IQ test if they were.
Maths is pretty precise, the answer is usually not a matter of opinion.
Anyway I don't think there has a been a good answer provided yet, I suspect the question
is a bad or erroneous one, but I would think someone would be able to make a plausible answer that was not massively complicated.
However it is quite a long sequence and each number in it adds another level of complexity.
What it does show I think is that number sequences questions are rather poor IQ questions because the number of possible answers is only limited by your imagination.
Maybe there should be a reward for the first person to solve it!
shinkyo00 said:Then I think your problem should be with those who misunderstand it and not with the subject itself! :)
If someone doesn't use the instrument as intended and ends up with an inaccurate result, it's not the instrument's fault! So a very drunk physicist measures and reports a length incorrectly - do we throw out the ruler or discipline the physicist?
Fine, but so what? If we measure a beanstalk today and the measurement differs a week later, do we conclude that the ruler is broken? In any case, no one here has been insisting that I.Q. is fixed.
Again, no one here has been insisting that I.Q. is fixed.
You mean reliable, possibly more accurate.
Well, if it's written out in full technical detail, every person who's studied psychometrics should understand that "intelligence" in the context of I.Q. testing has a very precise meaning that is not the same as what is meant when used in the mainstream... so what faith is there to be had? If the practitioner firmly states that I.Q. isn't what intelligence is entirely about, then strictly speaking, it's redundant given the understanding of psychometrics. If the practitioner firmly states that I.Q. is exactly what intelligence is and that the converse is also true, then that's their own opinion and it has no bearing on what psychometrics is about and whether psychometric tools are valid or not.
Anyway, it still sounds like you have a problem with the public's misunderstanding and not with I.Q. testing itself.
Chris11 said:Dyscalcula. Look it up. Many extreemly smart individuals have existed who have been absolutly dreadful at mathematical reasoning. For instance, one of my philosphy professors.
Also, number sequences are essencial to IQ testing. They are one of the fundamental components of any IQ test.
Chris11 said:Yes! You are right. However, it is this misunderstanding, that people don't realize is such, that IQ tests are known for. Yes it does have a bearing upon whether or not pscycometric tools are valid in pratice. This is a legitmate appeal to authority.
shinkyo00 said:Wrong. Raven's Progressive Matrices, Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices are just 2 examples that don't use number sequences.
Chris11 said:Correct, however those particular tests are very old, and are not general enough to provide an accurate assesment of human intelligence.
shinkyo00 said:Doesn't change the fact that they're I.Q. tests! In fact, because you said "any" (implying all), I can refer to Binet's "home-made" (in comparison to today's tests) test way back and you'd still be wrong.
I think you'd have to concede this point.
None of those tests that you have mentioned are even used very often, if at all.
Also, you are not addressing my main argument which is against the 'validity' of IQ testing. You have failed to address the most relevant points that I have raised in our discussion after your first reply to one of my comments. They are 'IQ' tests, but the main point is that they are not generally accepted methods, and are either completely outdated or far too specific to provide any truly scientific measurement.
IQ tests are only useful in identifying learning disiblities and pottential giftedness or mental retardation.
And, in the last 2, great or poor performance on an IQ test is not a sufficent or nessacary condition.
Furthermore, whenever a specific intellectual disability is identified via IQ testing, what happens is that the person conducting the assesment adjusts scores to obtain what they feel is a more accurate measure. This means that IQ test, as it was, was not valid.
Further, as these adjustments are by no means standardized, this means that their new, adjusted IQ score is also not a scientific measurement.
I was a member of mensa a while ago, and I attended some meetings. At these meetings, those who showed up generally talked and thought about nothing other than IQ testing, and equating intelligence with IQ, they talked about their ascomplishments. Several of those who showed up that day displayed no signs of high intelligence other than that they were members of the organization and that they were good scrable players. In terms of thoughtfullness (in the literal sense), most of them were lacking. In terms of ability, most of them were also lacking as whatever curiousities and natural gifts that they may or may not have possessed were used to obsess over what is essencially a meaningless number.
shinkyo00 said:That's a moot point. They're still accepted as psychometric instruments. Not very often doesn't mean they're not accepted anymore. Again, there are other tests out there that do not feature number sequences.
Which main argument exactly did I not address? I made the distinction between a technical definition of intelligence and an everyday usage of the word, which I believe is what you're trying to express but have not. Please refer back to previous posts regarding why your arguments against I.Q. testing in general are not correct.
Not generally accepted methods of what? If they're not generally accepted, please explain why the field of psychometrics still exists, and why this field is still producing results that involve I.Q., and why new revisions of I.Q. tests are still being produced. Please provide a source that substantiates your claim.
Far too specific to provide any truly scientific measurement? Wasn't precision what you were after? In all seriousness, please explain how anything can be so specific that it's not scientific.
Tautology.
Wrong. Schools in Asia still used I.Q. tests as a necessary and sufficient condition for admittance to gifted/accelerated programs in the last 10-15 years, that I personally know of.
That just means that specific testing has to be adjusted for. It doesn't mean the entirety of I.Q. testing methodology, psychometrics, research in any way involving I.Q. is invalid. All it means is that other factors, that can't currently be objectively accounted for, have influenced the score and therefore the score itself is compromised.
It is true that many of these organizations have members that are mistaken, misled, etc. It's also true that there is a fascination with I.Q. testing and intelligence. However, if you're going to judge a subject based on unrelated anecdotal evidence, then please, retract all your arguments so far and do more research before you make any more claims.
Essentially, the last paragraph you posted has nothing at all to do with I.Q. testing. So there exists a club for lawyers. Suppose you happen onto them while they're at a club meeting and you overhear them all giving confessions. Suppose this happens again and again. Do you now conclude that all lawyers are brutally honest people and that law degrees are a great thing since they identify those who are honest?
shinkyo00 said:Then I think your problem should be with those who misunderstand it and not with the subject itself! :)
If someone doesn't use the instrument as intended and ends up with an inaccurate result, it's not the instrument's fault! So a very drunk physicist measures and reports a length incorrectly - do we throw out the ruler or discipline the physicist?
Fine, but so what? If we measure a beanstalk today and the measurement differs a week later, do we conclude that the ruler is broken? In any case, no one here has been insisting that I.Q. is fixed.
Again, no one here has been insisting that I.Q. is fixed.
You mean reliable, possibly more accurate.
Well, if it's written out in full technical detail, every person who's studied psychometrics should understand that "intelligence" in the context of I.Q. testing has a very precise meaning that is not the same as what is meant when used in the mainstream... so what faith is there to be had? If the practitioner firmly states that I.Q. isn't what intelligence is entirely about, then strictly speaking, it's redundant given the understanding of psychometrics. If the practitioner firmly states that I.Q. is exactly what intelligence is and that the converse is also true, then that's their own opinion and it has no bearing on what psychometrics is about and whether psychometric tools are valid or not.
Anyway, it still sounds like you have a problem with the public's misunderstanding and not with I.Q. testing itself.