Far Cough 10:53 Sun Feb 26
There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
|
Paul Dirac
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
SecondOpinion
10:53 Wed Mar 1
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
easthammer 2:14 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
Mine was 63.41
THICKO
|
easthammer
2:10 Wed Mar 1
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Zeb
I think you may be right. Yet over the years in recent years, firms and institutions use an increasing battery of tests to judge the suitability of candidates. Which I think is better than relying mainly on an IQ test, which as you point out fails to consider important personality characteristics. But none of them are foolproof. And how the organisations act on what the tests reveal is equally if not more important. "Knowledge Management" is crucial no point in having a lot of smart people if the organisations don't know how to use them effectively
|
easthammer
1:39 Wed Mar 1
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Any Old Iron, I first encountered a personality/psychology test about 50 years ago when they did not feature greatly in job interviews.
It wasn't in a job application setting but was part of a Summer School on my first degree through the Open University.
Part of the Summer School was a War Games Exercise with a scenario based on the outbreak of World War 1. Roles in the exercise were to be based upon the results of a personality test. One of the roles to be assigned was that of "runner" delivering messages been the various camps (English, French, German etc.) Not wishing to be at every decision-maker's biding for two or three days I decided to "load" my answers to the test. I may have overdone it as I spent the next three days as the German Kaiser!
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:27 Wed Mar 1
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
zeb
If I send you lots of boxes of matches, could you make me a detailed scale model of the Eiffel Tower, please?
|
zebthecat
11:42 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
I am not sure that the various tests mean anything at all beyond how good you are at doing those tests. Ones that do pattern recognition might translate into aptitude for stats and programming but little beyond.that.
I was always good at IQ tests but am a complete imbecile in almost every practical situation. Being autistic probably doesn't help.
|
Any Old Iron
11:14 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
easthammer 2:14 Tue Feb 28
Three years ago I had to take a verbal reasoning test in order to progress to interview stage for a civil service position.
My result was 'your score is higher than 98% of those that have completed this task'.
Needless to say I was well chuffed and needless to say I fucked up the interview.
|
northbankboy68
5:57 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Had me in hysterics:
https://youtu.be/Xo9aNW_g7R4
|
easthammer
5:54 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Although I put up the link to the creative thinking test, and although I have a long-standing interest in the measurement of intelligence and alternative ways of doing it ( not just IQ ). I do realise the limitations of such measurements. To demonstrate I put in the ten words below, which I guess all of us would consider very convergent in their nature. (Focusing on one topic)
hammer
rice
claret
stadium
iron
bubbles
mill
wall
west
ham
Yet the algorithm used produced the following summary as:
Your score is 81.24, higher than 68.62% of the people who have completed this task
Suggesting it represented above-average creative thinking.
Clearly, context is an important consideration that seems to be lacking in this case.
Not to mention that anyone with a bare modicum of intelligence would know that currently, creativity is at a premium as far as West Ham are concerned:)
|
gph
5:17 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
A generalisation of something is not that something - otherwise they'd be no point in generalising it.
In other words, a generalised set of things is a set which contains the original things, and some other things as well. In this case, Dirac's delta is one of the other things.
Wiki isn't wrong, and Dirac wasn't either.
|
goose
4:47 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Your score is 82.51, higher than 75.01% of the people who have completed this task
|
Jasnik
4:43 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Your score is 101 .. you must be a cheating bastard as the score only goes up to 100.
|
Far Cough
4:40 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Your score is 72.02
Average
|
Far Cough
4:29 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Dirac was regarded by his friends and colleagues as unusual in character. In a 1926 letter to Paul Ehrenfest, Albert Einstein wrote of a Dirac paper, "I am toiling over Dirac. This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful." In another letter concerning the Compton effect he wrote, "I don't understand the details of Dirac at all."[12]
|
Far Cough
4:27 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Well I can't claim any expertise in higher maths but is Wiki wrong when they characterise the Dirac delta function as a generalized function or distribution over the real numbers?
If it is wrong are you implying that Dirac is some kind of a fraud when even Einstein was befuddled over some of his work?
I believe Dirac proved through his work, the existence of antimatter?
|
joe royal
4:22 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Your score is 70.41, higher than 12.79% of the people who have completed this task
No idea.
|
gph
3:47 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
A function is a map between two sets, A and B, which assigns one and only one member of B to each member of A. (Members of A can share the same member of B).
The Dirac delta function ẟ is defined like this ∫f(x)ẟ(x-y)dx = f(y) for all "reasonable" functions f.
A naive interpretation of ẟ as a function from the real numbers to the extended real numbers (real numbers with two special elements, plus and minus infinity), with ẟ(0) = infinity and 0 elsewhere doesn't really work - as the usual varieties of integration are not changed by changing the value of a function at a single point, the defining equation would reduce to ∫f(x)ẟ(x-y)dx = ∫f(x)0dx = 0.
There's all sorts of complications involved in properly defining ẟ, some of which change if you change the meaning of "reasonable".
I can't claim to have studied this in detail, and I would have forgotten most of it by now, anyway
|
Far Cough
10:48 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
gph, go on then, explain?
|
stewie griffin
10:17 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Your score is 92.94, higher than 98.73% of the people who have completed this task
|
Son of Sam
9:51 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Nice one EH, interesting tool. tried it with dog & bone, sea and land, sun and moon etc and scores low, very clever link
|
easthammer
2:14 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Some of you on this thread may be interested in this
https://www.datcreativity.com/
Take the test (literally takes less than 4mins)
It claims to test your creative thinking (rather than your IQ)
Here is what it said about me and I ain't no genius.
"Your score is 89.25, higher than 95.39% of the people who have completed this task"
Bit of fun but proves nothing of course.
|
Britannia Pub
1:23 Tue Feb 28
Re: There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards
|
Sheldon Cooper SWT
|
| 
