The importance of being (Error!)

[surftheiop]

Could you post some problems for skalansky to break down into simple logic?

Skalansky flexes his math logic alot so i think it would be interesting to see if he approaches things as uniquely as he makes it sounds like he does.

[nightwood]

[ QUOTE ]
Another clarification - this is a matter of problem solving (and generally a matter of analytical tasks). There's nothing preventing Ginger from completing ordinary tasks in a rote way. Most importantly (wrt this discussion), Ginger can communicate with other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you put it like this you're changing the original question a lot because it's no more Fred vs Ginger but Fred vs Ginger plus all the help she can get.

If she can overcome her weaknesses of adding single-digit numbers by using a calculator that's fine .. but that has nothing to do with her problem solving skills. Ginger alone fails (50%).

Allowing Ginger to get feedback about the correctness of her solutions makes answering your question very easy again. Fred is more intelligent (and it's not close) but Ginger is a much more useful tool (and it's not close).

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Ginger is an impossibility.

It would take a parlay of many 50% error free steps (on 3+3 =7 type ones) for her to solve difficult problems.

D

[/ QUOTE ]

She does it all in one single step.

Anyway. Fred is smarter imo. It seems like Ginger isn't even thinking things over. However, ginger is much more useful. Since you can solve any problem by letting her try at it a few times. It would be kind of like an all-knowing oracle. Not much smartness to it.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Fred is more intelligent (and it's not close) but Ginger is a much more useful tool (and it's not close).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just saw this.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying who is smarter is somewhat arbitrary. Some savants can do amazing calculations but are horrible at other things. It is tough to say if they are smarter than an average person.

What you can say is who is more useful and it is Ginger hands down. Computers exist that can do everything Fred can (I think just mathematica alone could be enough) so he would add pretty much nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Computers can't do one percent of what Fred can. They can't do word problems.

The tough part about math is not knowing how to solve equations. Its about knowing what equation to solve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of modern math is solving equations. Things like nonlinear differential equations fit into this category. I am not 100% sure you are right about this but it doesn't matter. I could just say that a normal person with a computer can do everything Fred can.

[nightwood]

[ QUOTE ]
I could just say that a normal person with a computer can do everything Fred can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless this person has mathematical knowledge comparable to Fred's that's simply not true.

Someone without mathematical knowledge but with a computer and say Mathematica would fail miserably even at such simple tasks like constructing an isosceles triangle from two given point in a coordinate system.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could just say that a normal person with a computer can do everything Fred can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless this person has mathematical knowledge comparable to Fred's that's simply not true.

Someone without mathematical knowledge but with a computer and say Mathematica would fail miserably even at such simple tasks like constructing an isosceles triangle from two given point in a coordinate system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, thats what I meant. Any physics or math undergrad in their second year would be as good as good as Fred if they got to use a computer.