Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

12 years old boy with higher IQ than Einstein developing his own theory of relativity

page: 16
182
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
When he'll be a teenager he'll either commit suicide or be taken into custody by the NSA in some secret underground facility. Either case, this world has become a very very very bad place for enlightened geniuses like this boy.


I almost pity him already.




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by innervision0730
 


people have to label other people who think and act differently as 'disease'. humans...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Tharsis
 


He may or may not make a great teacher. To be a great teacher, one needs a certain personality (lively, fluid, passionate). There are plenty of smart people who would make horrible teachers, thus they're better doing what they do best and leaving it to those with the energy to teach.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Hey, when I was twelve I could talk in pig latin. Yes, I could. Okay I couldn't but I really really tried!



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by delicatessen

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by Deran
Didn't he say it the other way around? I'm sure that's what he meant. But yes, 0/1 = 0. 1/0 = infinity.


Uhh, no, 0/1 or 1/0 is undefined, it is not a number, nor is it infinity.



first off 0/1=0 and 1/0= the result goes to infinity.

"undefined" means that there's no corresponding value for x.

a graph of a function which is 1/0 is undefined because there's NO LIMIT. the graph goes to infinity. there's no value for x.

if a function of certain x is 0/1 then it's defined for that x.
edit on 25-3-2011 by delicatessen because: (no reason given)


No, it is only infinity if it has a complex quotient, or is a limit, 1/0 by itself does not imply a limit. It is only infinity in certain cases, not all.

Edit: How does it "go to infinity" if it cannot converge on anything? Again, it can only converge on infinity via limits.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)


Are you just a troll or did you GENUINELY think there would be no mathematicians here?

"No, it is only infinity if it has a complex quotient."

Quotient is just a result of a division. Here's a complex quotient for you: 8.54*10^125. It's a FINITE NUMBER. No infinity involved.

"No, it is only infinity if it has...a limit"

Infinity means absence of a limit. How's that for an obvious?

"1/0 by itself does not imply a limit"

And i thought i said 1/0 was infinity. The irony is, this part of your quote, which is BS is contrary to the rest of your quote. saying BS and contradicting it with another BS is mind blowing.

"It is only infinity in certain cases, not all."

This makes no sense, even in relation to the rest of your post.

"How does it "go to infinity" if it cannot converge on anything?"

Numbers converge when they add up to a finite result, limit that is. Now reread your own quote above.

"Again, it can only converge on infinity via limits."

This sounds like new type of math that i never heard of. If something converges there's a limit. If there's a limit- there's no infinity. Limit=/= Infinity.

This was one of the most infantile full of shyt posts that i have ever come across.
edit on 27-3-2011 by delicatessen because: grammatika



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by laslidealist
Tesla was smarter than Einstein and perhaps thee most influential scientist ever in the human race and look what happened to him and all his work that tried to help mankind.
He never sold his soul and never cared about money and only wanted to improve life for mankind and be an American citizen (never happened and this is how the USA repaid him although the Nazi's they brought over were given citizenship's with new identities and all the money and support which is their reward by the USA for killing millions- seems pretty fair) and he died a shattered man with his inventions being used by TPTB for nothing but evil.
He is better off leaving society and flying under the radar and when he has accomplished something worthy to help mankind have all his experiments and papers copied exponentially and distributed throughout the world so even if TPTB get a hold of these there are people in the world that have the same knowledge with a level playing field.


While Tesla was undoubtedly a brilliant man, I don't see how you could say he was "smarter" than Einstein.

Thats like comparing apples to oranges. Einstein was all theory while Tesla all practical. Tesla openly expressed distain for Einsteins "mathematical" approaches. Tesla scoffed saying "space could not be bent", when we all now know this to be possible. He simply did not understand the deep mathematics Einstein did. At the end of the day though, Einstein contributed MUCH more to our basic understandings of the universe.

And yes, he did sell out in a way. Before his death, he was trying to pitch his "teleforce" weapon, or death ray gun to the US defense department. They turned him down.
edit on 27-3-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Not that the theory of relativity is a bad thing........

I wish he was pounding out theories on cancer cures, renewable energy, gas motor redesigns, computer languages and other great barriers in this life. He should have a website of sorts and posted onto it for all to see. A gift like that shouldn't go to waste or be buried by the PTB.

Imagine if he just focused on one thing and conquered it?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by delicatessen

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by delicatessen

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by Deran
Didn't he say it the other way around? I'm sure that's what he meant. But yes, 0/1 = 0. 1/0 = infinity.


Uhh, no, 0/1 or 1/0 is undefined, it is not a number, nor is it infinity.



first off 0/1=0 and 1/0= the result goes to infinity.

"undefined" means that there's no corresponding value for x.

a graph of a function which is 1/0 is undefined because there's NO LIMIT. the graph goes to infinity. there's no value for x.

if a function of certain x is 0/1 then it's defined for that x.
edit on 25-3-2011 by delicatessen because: (no reason given)


No, it is only infinity if it has a complex quotient, or is a limit, 1/0 by itself does not imply a limit. It is only infinity in certain cases, not all.

Edit: How does it "go to infinity" if it cannot converge on anything? Again, it can only converge on infinity via limits.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)


Are you just a troll or did you GENUINELY think there would be no mathematicians here?

"No, it is only infinity if it has a complex quotient."

Quotient is just a result of a division. Here's a complex quotient for you: 8.54*10^125. It's a FINITE NUMBER. No infinity involved.

"No, it is only infinity if it has...a limit"

Infinity means absence of a limit. How's that for an obvious?

"1/0 by itself does not imply a limit"

And i thought i said 1/0 was infinity. The irony is, this part of your quote, which is BS is contrary to the rest of your quote. saying BS and contradicting it with another BS is mind blowing.

"It is only infinity in certain cases, not all."

This makes no sense, even in relation to the rest of your post.

"How does it "go to infinity" if it cannot converge on anything?"

Numbers converge when they add up to a finite result, limit that is. Now reread your own quote above.

"Again, it can only converge on infinity via limits."

This sounds like new type of math that i never heard of. If something converges there's a limit. If there's a limit- there's no infinity. Limit=/= Infinity.

This was one of the most infantile full of shyt posts that i have ever come across.
edit on 27-3-2011 by delicatessen because: grammatika


I've been watching you guys debate this for several pages now...

In math, "Limit" has very specific definition. So is the word "Complex". Even "infinity" and how it relates to "limit", the relationship clear and well defined.

Look it up please... this argument you have here is unnecessary.

If anyone wants to question math, I suggest you ponder why calculus "works" at all in the physical world.

Think about what it means when they say "infinitesimally small", or "making an interval as small as you wish", then relate that to the physical world, where the concept of "continuity" is even questionable.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


"infinitesimally small", ?

"infinitesimally small", is a measurement relative to the infinite, or compared to the infinite. That means it has a measurement that depicts the objects relative size compared to 0.

If something Is infinite. It has no boundaries or limits. That means it is infinitely small and infinite large at the same time. It takes up all space possible.

So "infinitesimally small", is a measured object/source within the infinite.

What ever we can observe and measure exists within the infinite. That is the difference between infinite and finite.

When we have to zoom in on objects to observe and measure them. You know that the space it exists in is larger then it. The same rules apply for mathematics.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by delicatessen
This sounds like new type of math that i never heard of.


It not really that unknown. In fact, a limit is a well known concept in mathematics.

8.54*10^125 isn't a complex number by the way.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


"infinitesimally small", ?

"infinitesimally small", is a measurement relative to the infinite, or compared to the infinite. That means it has a measurement that depicts the objects relative size compared to 0.

If something Is infinite. It has no boundaries or limits. That means it is infinitely small and infinite large at the same time. It takes up all space possible.

So "infinitesimally small", is a measured object/source within the infinite.

What ever we can observe and measure exists within the infinite. That is the difference between infinite and finite.

When we have to zoom in on objects to observe and measure them. You know that the space it exists in is larger then it. The same rules apply for mathematics.



Hold on I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from in the context of what I said...

Perhaps I should have left out that phrase in my sentence. What I meant to say was, the concepts involved for calculus to "work", isn't necessarily true in the physical world, and yet calculus "works".

For example, calculus depends on the fact that one can make an interval as sufficiently close to zero width as one wishes for integration or differentiation to happen. In the physical world, this "magic" may not necessarily apply, as space in really small scales could turn out to be discontinuous, meaning, the mathematical concept of a "metric" breaks down. And yet, calculus still "works" on our normal length scales...

One then has to ask, what is the nature of physical space in really small scales? Does the "distance function" or "metric" still hold at that small scale? If not, how does "distance" as a mathematical concept "emerge" from a fundamentally discontinuous space?

Good thing I don't need that question answered for me to live my daily life lolz...

Oh well...
edit on 3/28/2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Calculus cannot eliminate hate or greed, hand power from the rich to the poor, or lever the weapons of tyrants from thier grasp. It cannot, else it would already have done so. Is it really worth hijacking a thread over? No , no it isnt. Please stop it!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by henriquefd

Originally posted by MsOz2011
reply to post by MsOz2011
 




Assuming he is full time at college and not just part time subject accelerated he would most definately have nothing socially in common with his classmates. My daughter will be in the same position next year when she does university math and science part time. Although she is very mature and fits in very well with classmates up to 4 years older, at university they can be any age and this is my greatest concern.

This whole story is sensationalizing this boy to the extreme and that's my point. There are many children out there with these abilities only most are protected by their parents from the media not exploited by them!





Then you are assuming wrong. He is not there full time. He doesn't even have a scholarship. His mother gave an interview about how hard it was to get him accepted to attend classes at IUPIU. Like I said, he lives a normal life, but he is NOT like MANY kids out there. On the contrary. He is part of a minority. And I don't think they are sentionalising anything. They either report the news, or they don't. I rather they do it.

It's not like he's the next Justin Bieber! He's a kid with a special brain. It is a nice piece of news. A positive news, amidst all the chaos and infotainment we have in the news today.


As for his IQ of 170, this is the HIGHEST score, the top of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. It can't go any higher. Which makes me think there are probably different IQ tests and we should be careful when comparing IQ scores. I mean, I score 152 in an internet IQ score, but I don't think that means anything. It just gives me bragging rights against my friends who scored less, I guess. =P

If anyone wanna read more info about this kid so they don't have to speculate, check the link below.
A more complete story of Jacob Barnet
edit on 25-3-2011 by henriquefd because: (no reason given)


They factor your age into the score. In fact, it is usually slanted for the younger you are. So most likely his IQ number would actually drop as he got older.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Calculus cannot eliminate hate or greed, hand power from the rich to the poor, or lever the weapons of tyrants from thier grasp. It cannot, else it would already have done so. Is it really worth hijacking a thread over? No , no it isnt. Please stop it!


Ok then let's keep calculus to ourselves and refrain from helping tyrants compute accurate trajectories so they can't have deadly accurate weapons.

I already forgot what this thread was all about...

Oh right! Kid with IQ170 who says 1/0 = infinity for convenience, and who TPTB might kidnap or pay big money to work for them...

Either way thread is still pointless as regards attaining "world peace and prosperity" - it doesn't depend on IQ.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Dude . . . did he just totally refute the Big Bang theory in one line of equations?


Jeebus



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I can not follow or understand what he is doing on that window, I just hope that he will put his intellect to productive use for humanity.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by laymanskeptic


I've been watching you guys debate this for several pages now...

In math, "Limit" has very specific definition. So is the word "Complex". Even "infinity" and how it relates to "limit", the relationship clear and well defined.

Look it up please... this argument you have here is unnecessary.

If anyone wants to question math, I suggest you ponder why calculus "works" at all in the physical world.

Think about what it means when they say "infinitesimally small", or "making an interval as small as you wish", then relate that to the physical world, where the concept of "continuity" is even questionable.


"I've been watching you guys debate this for several pages now..."

It's not a debate, it's just someone saying 2+2= 100.34, in the firm belief that no one will notice. Just because someone's grammar is impeccable doesn't make their BS "math" any less BS. If you don't know calc you should have at least caught his BS pre-algebra- somewhere in one his posts he says 0/1 is undefined. He goes to Wiki, picks up some random calc vocabulary and strings them together in random manner that makes no sense. i call that BS.

"In math, "Limit" has very specific definition. So is the word "Complex". Even "infinity" and how it relates to "limit", the relationship clear and well defined."

Thank you for this patronizing post. When i say Infinity or Limit i mean just that. And more than sure, by "complex quotient" he meant to say "polynomial ratio" so i had to give him random quotient that's finite by definition. There was no infinity involved. Not to mention this whole "complex quotient" had nothing to do with Infinity being Infinite.

"Look it up please... this argument you have here is unnecessary."

I bet the guy did just that. Sorry, but if you dont know math, Wiki won't help. It's good for BS-ing your way through, say, history debates.

"If anyone wants to question math, I suggest you ponder why calculus "works" at all in the physical world."

Everytime you start or finish a new topic in Calc, a real world application is considered. Even the mere graphing of functions is about trying to see the physical picture. For example, ever heard of "Exponential Growth and Decay" problems? They are a part of early calc and give you real life application. Like, answers to such questions as "when was the time a dead body found in a hotel room parted with its soul?" or "when is the safe time for people to come back to a city where an abomb went off?" etc.

"Think about what it means when they say "infinitesimally small", or "making an interval as small as you wish", then relate that to the physical world, where the concept of "continuity" is even questionable."

Those things you mention are elementary and self-explanatory for a diligent calc student. Don;t rely on Wiki, it always makes elementary math concepts sound/look more mysterious and complex than they really are.

"...where the concept of "continuity" is even questionable."

Please, elaborate.
edit on 28-3-2011 by delicatessen because: grammar



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by delicatessen
Thank you for this patronizing post. When i say Infinity or Limit i mean just that. And more than sure, by "complex quotient" he meant to say "polynomial ratio" so i had to give him random quotient that's finite by definition. There was no infinity involved. Not to mention this whole "complex quotient" had nothing to do with Infinity being Infinite.

Apologies for the patronizing tone.


Those things you mention are elementary and self-explanatory for a diligent calc student. Don;t rely on Wiki, it always makes elementary math concepts sound/look more mysterious and complex than they really are.

Self-explenatory for a student willing to suspend disbelief. I can always suspend disbelief regarding the foundations of calculus, and just follow it mechanically while using some physical insight, and ace the damn subject.

I'm talking about the mystery of why the physical world had to behave mathematically in the first place, something the garden variety calc student doesn't even think about.

"I'm moving around meaningful symbols on a sheet of paper, which so elegantly corresponds to the state of affairs in the physical world as if by magic, and I don't care about the philosophical why. I just know it works."

Typical engineering student. He will definitely pass the subject.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-


It not really that unknown. In fact, a limit is a well known concept in mathematics.

8.54*10^125 isn't a complex number by the way.


That was the answer to the quote below:


Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Edit:Again, it can only converge on infinity via limits.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)


Again when numbers converge they add up to a whole. When something keeps adding and adding TO INFINITY there's no talk of this "whole" - nothing converges. By his "math", something converges when it goes to infinity.

As for the "complex number" there was no talk of complex numbers. He meant to say that ONLY results of POLYNOMIAL RATIOS which he described as "COMPLEX QUOTIENT" approach infinity. It's just a simple matter of punctuation that i didn;t use.
edit on 28-3-2011 by delicatessen because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
182
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join