HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: The Cone Problem
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:06:00 GMT


>From: Chris Simonich <simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>Message-ID: <1992Dec15.205302.9605@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>
>In article <01GSCJ3DIWSY9VWJ1S@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld
> Hvatum) writes:
>>
>>>From: Chris Simonich <simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>>>Message-ID: <1992Dec10.192529.4392@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>>>
>>>...
>>>paint, the interior surface area must be "painted."  It follows that it
>>>would be possible to paint the exterior surface with finite amount of paint.
>>>It might take a while, but that's just a minor detail.....
>>>
>>>Do you agree or disagree?
>>
>>I agree.  If you can paint the interior all the way to infinity,
>>the paint must be infinitely thin.
>
>Well, sort of.....but if the paint is infinitely thin, the volume required
>to paint an infinite surface area is 0 liters....so you don't really need
>any paint at all....sort of.

That's what I had in mind.  But you have to be careful here - your
statement is not generally true.  If you were painting a finite surface
with an infinitely thin paint, then, yes, your statement would always be
true.  But in this case, you're painting an infinite surface.  The
convergence of infinity/infinity can be zero, finite, or infinite.  But
you're right in this particular case.  In order to be able to paint the
inside of the cone, the paint thickness has to vanish quickly enough
when you go to infinity to make it thin enough to require no paint
volume to cover the entire infinite surface.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Cone Problem
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.192529.4392@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com (Chris Simonich) writes:
>The cone problem centers around the idea of forming a shape (volume) which
>has a finite volume, but infinite surface area.  I was once told that you
>could fill such a volume with paint, but could not paint it.  Well....
>...
>Ok, now that we have a mental image of the shape, we could certainly
>fill it with paint.  However, the surface area on the inside of the cone
>equals the surface area outside the cone.  Since the cone is filled with
>paint, the interior surface area must be "painted."  It follows that it
>would be possible to paint the exterior surface with finite amount of paint.
>It might take a while, but that's just a minor detail.....
>...
>Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree.

If a layer of paint has any finite thickness whatsoever, the procedure you
have given would not be able to paint the interior, since past a certain
point the cone is narrower than this thickness.

On the other hand, if a layer of paint has zero thickness, you have indeed
painted it with a finite amount of paint, and the fallacy is now in the implied
equivalence between "infinite area" and "needs infinite amount of paint", an
equivalence that does not hold if layers of paint are zero thickness.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:46:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GSCTXYUARM9VXQ5B@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:

> Ooops, sorry.  If that's what you're shooting for, I've only
> heard that they accept LAIT and Mega. But they could probably
> be convinced to accept anything else with sufficient data.
> Data on the Quest Test is a bit skimpy now (it's fairly new).

It also has several questions which have multiple answers (synonyms);
I found 3 answers for one.  Most are quite good, however.

> Well, what about the guy with lousy grades and a 1550 SAT?  The
> admissions officer plugs it into his grades+SAT+interview regression
> formula, which ranks him 3651st among the pool of applicants.

Then his grades are the problem, not his SATs, but your point is well
taken.  However, I'm not aware of any schools, scholarships, or clubs
that *require* a 1560 as opposed to a 1550.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"S.B., with an I.Q. of 161, failed to complete his course of study,
running away instead with his professor's wife."
H. J. Eysenck, _Know Your Own I.Q._
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 10:04:05 GMT

crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>>I tend to think that agnosticism (a word that annoys me even 
>>to type, for personal reasons) is basically a declaration faith should not 
>>exist, perhaps does not exist, or whatever.  To be an agnostic is to say, 
>>in my view, that one can never have faith in anything.  

>Those who call themselves christians are only in the last camp, with atheists
>only in the first.  To be resident in either groups 2 or 3 is to be uncommit-
>ted, and in the the parlance of christianity, to have no faith.  Those without
>faith are agnostics.  It's by their faith that christians are christians, and 
>atheists are atheists.  

>So as I tried to say before, those who have have faith (pro or con) could 
>have gained it not from the intellect, but only from the heart.

>>This is something with which I cannot agree.

>THAT you cannot agree is of no interest to anyone.
Why say that?  How do you knw it is true?  What do you hope to achieve?
Why not say "it is of no interest to ME." 
I just kinda found that beligerent, evcen if it is true.
Anyway...
>Please tell us WHY you
>cannot agree.

It is my feeling that there are far too many things which the reason is 
incapable of conclusively dealing with in any effective way.  Love, eternity,
right and wrong all disintegrate into relativistic nonsense if reasonnis all 
that is consulted.  I just tend to think that faith is as necessary as emotion,
and that, in fact, those who claim no faith or a lack of ability to believe 
in anything are merely believing in something else less describable and capable
of being pinned down.

That's all.

Peace,

Matt I.
>-- 
>| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:43:34 GMT

burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:

>The only difference between a fundamentalist and an athiest is whether
>they want to worship the idol, or smash it.  

IF that were a valid analogy, that would still be a pretty big difference,
don't you think?

>Their focus of attention
>remains the same--on the idol.

So people on both sides of the abortion issue are basically the same, since
the focus of attention remains the same--on abortion?

Atheists are people who do not believe that the idol exists.  You can't
get much more different from a fundamentalist than that.

mark
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: worm puzzle
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:35:31 -0600

In article <1992Dec11.084756.14827@eagercon.com>  writes:
>In article 1g50gfINNhtt@rave.larc.nasa.gov, yaros@sab57.larc.nasa.gov (Steve Yaros) writes:
>>In article <85014@ut-emx.uucp>, ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Kitchen) writes:
>>|> >tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes:
[much deleted]
>
>I came to the conclusion that a half-circle will cover the worm quite a while
>ago, but I can't convince my self that it is the minimum.  
>
>Anyone got a convincing argument that anything smaller than a half-circle
>will not work?

The half-circle _has_ to be the minimum, unless a larger area is required.
Imagine the worm pivots at the center- it draws out a half circle.
(And you can't taper an end, because the worm could move both ends.. This should
 be the maximum dimensions of the baby worm.)

I want to know if any position of the worm needs more blanket.. Say.. if the
worm pivots at three points? Four?
From: Clive.Jones@f14.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Clive Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Date: 19 Dec 92 23:32:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7101/14 - C.A.L.M. BBS, Alberton RSA

Hi Richard,

 > tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Roger Tipley) writes:

 >>This question has been bandied about our hall for a few weeks.
 >>Perhaps this august group could give us a definitive answer.

 >>We all agree which day the times 23:59:59.9 and 00:00:00.1 belong
 >>to (the first is obviously P.M. of one day and the second is A.M.
 >>of the next day).  The argument is about which day the instant of
 >>midnight (24:00:00.000..) would be associated with.

Well since the original meaning of P.M. was as an abreviation of Post Meridian.
The meridian being defined as the meridian of Greenwich, London, England
(shown as zero degrees longtitude on maps) hence Greenwich mean time being used and becoming a standard reference (at least while the grand old empire survived). If I use the logic of this system then 24:00:00.000 becomes 00:00:00.000 and is today while 00:00:00.001 would be tomorrow except when it is today:-)

 >>The dictionary definition of A.M. and P.M. would lead me to equate
 >>noon with "M", so it wasn't of much help.  Please help us out.  I
 >>want to know if I will be accused of subjecting people to a 14 hour
 >>meeting or a 2 hour meeting by scheduling the meeting from 10-12
 >>A.M.  I don't necessarily consider the time-of-day algorithm in my
 >>computer to reflect the right answer either.

Again based on the above you have no worries as A.M. meaning Ante Meridian (before) is clearly clearly implied in a meeting from 10-12 A.M.

 > I don't have the reference, but this was settled in court a few
 > years ago!  (I read it in the newspaper, so it must be true :-) )

 > Seems some town put up a sign:

 >                   Metered Parking
 >                   Two Hour Limit
 >                 Except 12 PM to 6AM

Sounds like the Judge/Magistrate needed more schooling.

 > (or something similar).

 > Someone who parked longer than two hours in the middle of the
 > afternoon challenged the ticket.  The judge ruled that 12 PM
 > is indeed 12 noon, but I think he let the ticket stand because
 > the intent of the sign was clear despite the error.

Miscarriage of justice without a doubt. The interpretation of the sign is clear. There is a two hour parking limit except between 12 p.m. and 6 a.m. when parking limitations do not apply.

Shows you I'll never be a Judge:-)

Merry Christmas,
Clive Jones


--  
INTERNET: Clive.Jones@f14.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:15:00 GMT


>From: Christopher J Burian <cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>
>Message-ID: <Bz34sy.MMM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>
>>You seem to be insisting that an item must have a provably
>>correct answer.  If so, you have to throw out a lot of IQ test
>>items, many of ETS's SAT verbal analogies, etc.  Yes, #25 may
>>be slightly defective, and that's a problem with many items
>>involving knowledge of "human experience", rather than cold,
>>pure logic.  In other words, I'm agreeing with you to a point.
>
>Cold, pure logic?  When cold, pure logic can be used to find two
>valid correct answers, then the question is completely without
>merit.

No, my point was that #25 is one of the few non-verbal questions to
which formal logic cannot be applied.  Essentially, it's a question
similar to, "Which shape is simpler - a square or a circle?"  In my
opinion, that's more ambiguous than question #25, but it illustrates my
point.  You can't apply formal logic to all the steps of the solution
because the question is not sufficiently defined.  But that's the point
- IQ tests attempt to measure more than just formal logic (though I
admit the Mega Test heavily does so).

Now, if everyone in a world grew up using compasses, but never rulers,
the circle might be judged by "intelligent" people to be the simpler
shape.  In a square-grid-and-ruler-world, the square might be judged
simpler.  Essentally, the answer depends to some degree on the human
experience.

>You might as well be flipping coins on a true-false test
>as a measure of intelligence.

Not at all.  The item has demonstrated at least fairly good content
validity.  In other words, it was answered "correctly" by the great
majority of those who did very well on the rest of the Mega Test,
including those who did well on questions requiring only logic.

I might point out that what psychometricians call face validity - the
apparent validity of an item - need not at all be related to the actual
testing validity, called content validity, of the item.  For example, if
the item simply said, "Choose A or B", and it turned out for some
unfathomable reason that all smart people picked A, and all dumb people
picked B, the item would be said to have solid content validity, even
though its face validity is nil.  Personality tests are a perfect
example of this kind of item.  The item may appear to be completely
unrelated to the measure, but it "works".  Understandably, this sort of
thing raises both ethical and public relations issues.

Finally, let me concede that item #25 may be flawed in the way it
operates for a significant minority of people who "should" have gotten
it right.  Perhaps you could even convince the author that it's a bad
question.  But I don't see how you can make something a lot cleaner.  If
you invent a similar item, someone else will probably find some other
objection to it.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: What is God? (Was: Atheism and Intelligence)
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:32:41 GMT

Something that bugs me about all this discussion on belief in God is that
people aren't explaining what they mean by the term "God". There is a big
differnce between claiming that you do/don't believe in God as defined by a
particular religion, and  claiming you do/don't believe in something
more powerfull than humans.

Much of the discussion seems to jumping back an forth between these
two ideas of God. People should state what they have in mind when they
refer to God.

Just because you can't prove that some type of God does or does not
exist doesn't mean that its not possible to disprove the existence of
a *particular* God.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:06:00 GMT


>From: Chris Long <clong@remus.rutgers.edu>
>Subject: Re: The Mega Test
>
>In article <01GSCALOR5JM9VVHVS@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:
>
>> Perhaps you could even convince the author that it's a bad question.
>> But I don't see how you can make something a lot cleaner.  If
>> you invent a similar item, someone else will probably find some other
>> objection to it.
>
>Not really.  The other 10 spatial problems (with the possible exception
>of #30) are quite good.  Why not have two more questions like them?

Yes, but those 10 items (with the possible exception of item # 30) are
fundamentally different.  They are, by design, completely unambiguous
and logically tractable.  That is, they could all be solved quickly if
you could write fairly simple programs for an infinitely fast computer.
Not so with items #25 and #26, where you'd spend all your time trying to
figure out what program to write.  If you know what program to write to
solve #25 and #26, I know some AI researchers who'd like to talk to you.

Without going into a lot of psychometric mumbo-jumbo, the theory is that
the two types of questions measure slightly different things.  Are you
maintaining that an IQ test should only include items which are
unambiguously soluble with deductive mathematical thinking?
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:50:54 GMT

On second thought, my previous post may have been in error.  His view that he
'just doesn't' care is...well... akin to what you described.

Matt I.

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: The Cone Problem
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:18:00 GMT


>From: Chris Simonich <simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>Message-ID: <1992Dec10.192529.4392@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>
>...
>paint, the interior surface area must be "painted."  It follows that it
>would be possible to paint the exterior surface with finite amount of paint.
>It might take a while, but that's just a minor detail.....
>
>Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.  If you can paint the interior all the way to infinity,
the paint must be infinitely thin.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:40:55 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

 ... As a footnote to my last post(beware thee who is too quick to hit "send")
Agnosticism is acknowleging that all we know is to some extent a guess. (my def
inition) but all people have beliefs to some extent.  Gil. Stewart(forgive if i
 get your name wrong) seems to hold the BELIEF that gut instinctsare very bad.
  I tend to have an opinion they are useful only rarely, but i have a tendency
(belief?) that we limit ourselves if we only use one form of thinking, especial
ly if we rely soley on reason.

meanwhile:
------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
From: dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:21:25 GMT

feel strongly about this philosophy. My reaction my be overly strong and I
[your tolerance is appreciated :)]

PLEASE, everyone think about the hand that feeds you AND REJECT IT IF IT
FORCES CERTAIN RESPONSES IN ORDER TO KEEP BEING FED!

Every major advance in the world of science and art has come from a few
brave people rejecting the hand that fed them. Okay, too strong, most
major advances. My philosophy is not BLIND nor VINDICTIVE but it certainly
is selfish. I am not altruistic, nor do I wish to come in contact with
people who believe themselves to be altruistic. A totally unselfish act,
if there is such a thing, scares the hell out of me.

Someone working for the "good" of others is the dangerous person. As an
example I site prohibition. For everyone's good the government outlawwed
booze. What a "good deal" that was.
[so you believe that altruism automatically implies meddling?
I would consider that to be incompetence or intolerance-i.e. human error
 Certainly it should be avoided, but these problems come DESPITE altruism, not
because of it.  The real problem is telling when a person is altruistic, or
if (s)he is lying to you or to himself]
..
So, if you wish to follow any self proclaimed leader merely on faith, go
ahead. But don't expect me to support your choice, approve of your choice,
or, if my ability to choose becomes endangered, allow your choice.
..
---end quote
  Trading your choice for someone else's is just a trade of.  Meanwhile, on the
 topics of leaders, I personally feel that just because I believe in a religion
s does not mean I believe in the PEOPLE governing it.I do not really like a l
ot of the teachings of my church, and since they are "optional" as I understand
their teaching of doctrine, I disregard them.  It gives me an almost ghoulish
pleasure to note that since my religion acknowleges human failings so strongly
that it implies the leaders cannot be totally trusted.  I think one of the bigg
est problems the Catholic church has had and does have is that the leaders
have been to aristocratic and too little like the "servants of the people" that
 my religion text book said they should be.  Hopefully I misjudge these people
but I don't think i'm wrong.
From: etbeteille@happy.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Politics and Intelligence
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:18:56 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


Please forgive if already covered . . . . 


If it is generally true that the more "intelligent"
among us (i.e. university professors, and other 
alleged leaders of the mind) tend to be more liberal
politically, would it follow that those who are
considered extremely intelligent would naturally
be libertarian?

I would argue yes, that libertarianism, as expressed
in American documents such as the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution as well as works
by Thomas Jefferson, takes an acute mind to understand
and appreciate without deteriorating into the old
emotional arguments used by both liberals and conser-
vatives when they are forcing the rest of us to do
things.

Comments?

Eric T. Beteille
ETBeteille@uccs.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:31:00 GMT


>From: Chris Long <clong@remus.rutgers.edu>
>Message-ID: <Dec.15.16.32.53.1992.27645@remus.rutgers.edu>
>
>In article <01GSC9K9BS7M9VX7CB@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:
>
>> Throw in the LAIT, the LIGHT, and the Quest Test, which just appeared in
>> OMNI (Dec 1992), and you have more tests than I can imagine anyone
>> wanting to take.
>
>Does the Mega Society accept all the above tests?  I thought they
>accepted just two.

Ooops, sorry.  If that's what you're shooting for, I've only
heard that they accept LAIT and Mega. But they could probably
be convinced to accept anything else with sufficient data.
Data on the Quest Test is a bit skimpy now (it's fairly new).

>Mega Test is quite dramatic; no one has ever been excluded from
>anything for getting a 1550 instead of a 1560 on the SAT.

Well, what about the guy with lousy grades and a 1550 SAT?  The
admissions officer plugs it into his grades+SAT+interview regression
formula, which ranks him 3651st among the pool of applicants.  The
school is shooting for a freshman class size of 3100, so they decide to
accept the top 3650 applicants.  Rats, he missed it by a hair.
A slightly better interview, one class grade, or one more question
on the SAT could have made all the difference.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa