> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:14:20 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...
> > Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
> Why do you assume it does?
You responded to him encouraging him to prove his genius.
> I find his claims intensely amusing [and] inconsistent with
> observable reality.
Yes, I agree it's "inconsistent with [your] observable reality".
> > Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying,
> > but can't or won't call them a liar? And, just how do or
> > would you know he is a liar? Maybe he is, or he truly
> > believes he is a genius.
> Wow, this is fun! Come up with a false premise, then ask me
> to defend myself against that false premise. I'll answer as soon
> as you tell me-- yes or no-- if you've stopped beating your wife.
The premise goes to determining the nature of _why_ his claims
matters to you. You didn't state. It was a pre-emptive response.
The issue is why you claim my premise is false. I only asked if you
though he was a liar, but didn't state so. In what way is that false?
Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric. But
>> if you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing
>> speed won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
> I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all. It
> seems completely worthless to me.
Our brains are much too similar architected that speed wouldn't matter.
It's like a CPU: If you have two CPUs of the same design, the one with the faster processing speed will win in a competition on the same task.
Whatever that task is. If you had two CPUs of wildly different design, clock speed comparison is much less meaningful (e.g. simple in-order ARM vs. complex OoOE x86).
> Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems
> be devalued? Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly
> and solve difficult problems. There are also plenty of people who can
> think quickly, but can't solve difficult problems at all.
Actually, I haven't seen these sort of people, they are not plenty.
There are people who think quickly and can solve complex problems, and there are thick and slow thinkers, who can't even solve simple problems, but they get angry if you are a lot quicker than them, because it reduces their already low self-esteem.
People with attention disorder have many difficulties, while they don't have problems with the IQ tests. These conditions are orthogonal to IQ measurements, and in fact, they shouldn't be. An attention disorder impacts your capability of solving hard problems, but it doesn't affect your capability for simple problems, because there, their limited attention span is sufficient to solve the problem.
> So, why should an
> uncapable quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable
> slow thinker? I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a
> problem seems to have no correlation with the _ability_ of one to
> solve problems.
Average people tend to think that highly intelligent people must have other deficits or so, as if the gods spread their gifts equal (they don't, the Bible tells you "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Matthew 25:29). There are people which have odd brains (savants), that can do some things extremely good and other things very bad, but in general, intelligent people are just people with a more efficient brain - faster, less power consumption, and they typically are better in every aspect you can test. It has been found out that more stupid people in general face earlier dementia, which seems to coincide with Matthew 25:29. Or maybe it just is diagnosed earlier, because intelligent people can hide the symptoms for longer. Who knows. Highly intelligent people usually have their attention disorder diagnosed late, too, because its impact is much less than on stupid people - if you are a thick and slow thinker, *and* you have a short attention span, you are completely fucked up.
Life is unfair. And speed does matter. It's not the only thing that matters. But if you discuss about a metric like IQ, you should stick to what is actually measured, and not redefine the way of obtaining the value.
IQ is the single number that results of doing a standardized MESA test.
As all single numbers resulting from some standard tests, they don't reflect everything, but they correlate significantly. And this number is only by 50% influenced from your genes, the other 50% are your own achievement - you *can* train your brain to become more efficient (it will become more efficient on whatever you train it to - if you train IQ tests, your IQ will rise without much effect on other problem solving skills). And you also can ruin your brain (called "burn out syndrome").
-- Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
On Jun 28, 3:59 am, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:54 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Whether that is genius or not, I wouldn't venture to guess.
> Hey Bruce what money making websites do you own?
Your measure of whether someone is a genius is whether they own any
money making websites?
Clearly if you are a genius, its not in the field of business, since a
genius in the field of business would be aware that owning a money
making website is not a mark of business genius.
On Jun 28, 4:05 am, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a nutshell Bruce did I run over your dog or something?
No, nothing personal, gavino. I'm sure that you were not aimlessly
trolling clf for years as a personal attack on anybody. And I am sure
that you did not adopt the childish attention grabbing tactic of
posting absurdly long subject lines for your posts as a personal
assault either.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:04:11 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> You responded to him encouraging him to prove his genius.
Yes, as have others. It kind of naturally flows from when someone claims they are some flavor of genius, but who have not demonstrated anything to support that claim.
> Yes, I agree it's "inconsistent with [your] observable reality".
Again, does that imply you sense something I don't here? Can you point to any aspect about anything gavino has written-- past or present-- that suggests to you brilliance. If you can, I'd love to see it. If you can't, then it appears it is also inconsistent with [your] observable reality. Welcome to the club.
> The premise goes to determining the nature of _why_ > his claims matters to you. [...]
False premise. They don't matter. I comment on many things that don't matter to me. I comment on you, for example. And I do this because it amuses me.
> The issue is why you claim my premise is false.
Primarily because it comes from the faulty assumption that merely responding to someone implies that someone "matters." It may be the case that you suffer from only responding to others that in some sense matter to you. But you are invited to not assume you are the template for humanity. Oh god, please don't let you be the template for humanity.
> I only asked if you though he was a liar, but didn't > state so.
I have no evidence that gavino is telling the truth. If he suddenly starts writing messages that indicate or even suggest some kind of genius, I am more than happy to accept that he is.
> >> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.
> > Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
> > Are you part of some group that attempts to protect the integrity of the
> > word "genius"?
> > What vested interest could you possibly have in his claim?
> > Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying, but can't or
> > won't
> > call them a liar? And, just how do or would you know he is a liar? Maybe
> > he is, or he truly believes he is a genius.
> > What's the frame of reference? A guy of average intellect in a mental
> > institution could probably, legitimately, consider himself to be a genius.
> > A guy of slightly above average intellect in a prison ... Etc.
> > His claim matters to him. Getting others to accept the claim matters to
> > him. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. Maybe he's insane. Maybe he just
> > needs
> > some attention. Who really cares?
> > Even if someone here _could_ prove they're as brilliant as Albert
> > Einstein,
> > no one here would believe it... I'm not going to believe it. You're
> > definately not... So, what's the point in attempting to have him justify
> > his claim?
> > You have the choice of unconditionally accepting his claim, or
> > unconditionally rejecting it, or conditionally accepting it, or
> > conditionally rejecting it. Proof is not required for your personal
> > decision or judgement. Proof may change your decision, if it was
> > conditional. But, once you've made your decision, is there any further
> > need to discuss his claim with him?
> 6 years later and we are possibly making a start on forth. Every group is
> the same, bodybuilding groups consider gavin scheutte a troll, even the
> geodesic dome group from 1997 thought the same. I can't find a positive
> reference to gav_comedy or any of the aliases.
> Links available if you want them, this is serial behaviour.
> I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has
> been legendary, with little payoff.
> Ball is *still* in your court gavino. I'm not convince you "get it" at all.
> > >> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.
> > > Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
> > Exactly.
> > Guys, knock it off. All of you are way off topic. We told gavino to
> > buckle down and take steps to learn Forth, and he is doing that, and IMO
> > we should provide support not harassment.
> > Cheers,
> > Elizabeth
> > --
> > ==================================================
> > Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
> > FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
> > 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
> > Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com
> > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> > applications since 1973."
> > ==================================================
> Elizabeth, gavino is not taking steps to learn Forth; here's the same
> MO from 6 years ago.
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:04:11 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > You responded to him encouraging him to prove his genius.
> Yes, as have others. It kind of naturally flows from when someone claims they are some flavor of genius, but who have not demonstrated anything to support that claim.
> > Yes, I agree it's "inconsistent with [your] observable reality".
> Again, does that imply you sense something I don't here? Can you point to any aspect about anything gavino has written-- past or present-- that suggests to you brilliance. If you can, I'd love to see it. If you can't, then it appears it is also inconsistent with [your] observable reality. Welcome to the club.
> > The premise goes to determining the nature of _why_
> > his claims matters to you. [...]
> False premise. They don't matter. I comment on many things that don't matter to me. I comment on you, for example. And I do this because it amuses me.
> > The issue is why you claim my premise is false.
> Primarily because it comes from the faulty assumption that merely responding to someone implies that someone "matters." It may be the case that you suffer from only responding to others that in some sense matter to you. But you are invited to not assume you are the template for humanity. Oh god, please don't let you be the template for humanity.
> > I only asked if you though he was a liar, but didn't
> > state so.
> I have no evidence that gavino is telling the truth. If he suddenly starts writing messages that indicate or even suggest some kind of genius, I am more than happy to accept that he is.
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >> I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric. But
> >> if you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing
> >> speed won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
> > I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all. It
> > seems completely worthless to me.
> Our brains are much too similar architected that speed wouldn't matter.
> It's like a CPU: If you have two CPUs of the same design, the one with
> the faster processing speed will win in a competition on the same task.
> Whatever that task is. If you had two CPUs of wildly different design,
> clock speed comparison is much less meaningful (e.g. simple in-order ARM
> vs. complex OoOE x86).
> > Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems
> > be devalued? Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly
> > and solve difficult problems. There are also plenty of people who can
> > think quickly, but can't solve difficult problems at all.
> Actually, I haven't seen these sort of people, they are not plenty.
> There are people who think quickly and can solve complex problems, and
> there are thick and slow thinkers, who can't even solve simple problems,
> but they get angry if you are a lot quicker than them, because it
> reduces their already low self-esteem.
> People with attention disorder have many difficulties, while they don't
> have problems with the IQ tests. These conditions are orthogonal to IQ
> measurements, and in fact, they shouldn't be. An attention disorder
> impacts your capability of solving hard problems, but it doesn't affect
> your capability for simple problems, because there, their limited
> attention span is sufficient to solve the problem.
> > So, why should an
> > uncapable quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable
> > slow thinker? I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a
> > problem seems to have no correlation with the _ability_ of one to
> > solve problems.
> Average people tend to think that highly intelligent people must have
> other deficits or so, as if the gods spread their gifts equal (they
> don't, the Bible tells you "For unto every one that hath shall be given,
> and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken
> away even that which he hath." Matthew 25:29). There are people which
> have odd brains (savants), that can do some things extremely good and
> other things very bad, but in general, intelligent people are just
> people with a more efficient brain - faster, less power consumption, and
> they typically are better in every aspect you can test. It has been
> found out that more stupid people in general face earlier dementia,
> which seems to coincide with Matthew 25:29. Or maybe it just is
> diagnosed earlier, because intelligent people can hide the symptoms for
> longer. Who knows. Highly intelligent people usually have their
> attention disorder diagnosed late, too, because its impact is much less
> than on stupid people - if you are a thick and slow thinker, *and* you
> have a short attention span, you are completely fucked up.
> Life is unfair. And speed does matter. It's not the only thing that
> matters. But if you discuss about a metric like IQ, you should stick to
> what is actually measured, and not redefine the way of obtaining the
> value.
> IQ is the single number that results of doing a standardized MESA test.
> As all single numbers resulting from some standard tests, they don't
> reflect everything, but they correlate significantly. And this number
> is only by 50% influenced from your genes, the other 50% are your own
> achievement - you *can* train your brain to become more efficient (it
> will become more efficient on whatever you train it to - if you train IQ
> tests, your IQ will rise without much effect on other problem solving
> skills). And you also can ruin your brain (called "burn out syndrome").
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/
I am impressed that you learned forth on your own in another country
from where it was invented and made your own chip, even if they chip
doesn't provide a ncie web browsing experience in 1% the resources of
a pentium.
or does it?
On Jun 28, 9:03 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:05 am, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a nutshell Bruce did I run over your dog or something?
> No, nothing personal, gavino. I'm sure that you were not aimlessly
> trolling clf for years as a personal attack on anybody. And I am sure
> that you did not adopt the childish attention grabbing tactic of
> posting absurdly long subject lines for your posts as a personal
> assault either.
> On Jun 28, 12:20 am, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 3:03 pm, Josh Grams <j...@qualdan.com> wrote:
> > > Mark Wills wrote:
> > > > On Jun 26, 2:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:26:36 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
> > > >>> Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!
> > > >> I kind of doubt it.
> > > > Don't be so negative!
> > > Gavino has been posting the same sorts of questions since...hmm, looks
> > > like early 2006, on many different programming-language newsgroups
> > > (python, lisp, scheme, haskell, php, tcl, forth, java, etc.). AFAICT he
> > > has *never* demonstrated any level of knowledge on any subject beyond
> > > what can be turned up with 30 seconds or so of internet searching.
> > > So...tell me, what more would it take to convince you that calling him a
> > > troll is not negative but simply realistic?
> > > --Josh
> > java sucks
> > tcl rocks
> > lisp is nice
> > forth is a puzzle seems nice if I can figure it out and mega fast n
> > lean
> > php who cares not me
> > haskell is nice
> > scheme is nice
> > knowledge on subject? I am a linux architect if you know what that
> > is. Virtualization storage linux bsd I am very very skilled. I am
> > also an economist game author and book author, not to mention football
> > and basketball player, and hek even a poet.
> > So lets not try to pidgeon hole anyone ok?
> > I would love to see any for profit websites you have online mr
> > brainiac.
> Yeh well im a millionair with this one website, mr gavino.www.facebook.com.
> it's written in forth on a virutalized storage linux card. So lets not
> try to put a pidgen in the pie. That is a poem btw.
> On Jun 28, 4:08 am, marko <ma...@marko.marko> wrote:
...
>> I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has
>> been legendary, with little payoff.
>> Ball is *still* in your court gavino. I'm not convince you "get it" at all.
> What are you babbling about?
He means he's looking forward to seeing that you are actually working through one of the books on Forth and learning how to use it effectively. So am I.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
-- ==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
On Jun 28, 8:57 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 3:59 am, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 6:54 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > Whether that is genius or not, I wouldn't venture to guess.
> > Hey Bruce what money making websites do you own?
> Your measure of whether someone is a genius is whether they own any
> money making websites?
> Clearly if you are a genius, its not in the field of business, since a
> genius in the field of business would be aware that owning a money
> making website is not a mark of business genius.
grandpa said it best "if your so smart, why aint ya rich?"
On Jun 28, 12:18 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:59:08 AM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> > John go fuck your self.
> I wish. Maybe more yoga.
I have yet to see Gavino, Passaniti or Elizabeth Rather post a single
Forth function on comp.lang.forth --- but I'm betting on Gavino to be
the first --- go, Gavino, go!
All this talk about genius and I.Q. is nonsense. The I.Q. tests were
invented by the eugenics folks to quantify the very unintelligent; to
distinguish between morons and idiots and so forth. They didn't want
to say, "Well, my neighbor's kid is dumb as a box of rocks, so lets
kill him." They wanted to be scientific. By assigning everybody a
number, they could achieve their goal without accusations of
subjectivity (the neighbor's kid beat up their kid and they want
revenge). The I.Q. tests were never intended to quantify genius, or
even reasonable levels of intelligence --- anything over 100 is good,
but I wouldn't assign any more meaning to it than that. I refuse to
take I.Q. tests because doing so is a tacit approval of eugenics,
which I am opposed to.
Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
Is the following statement true or false?
"The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
intelligence."
Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Jun 28, 12:18 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:59:08 AM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
>> > John go fuck your self.
>> I wish. Maybe more yoga.
> I have yet to see Gavino, Passaniti or Elizabeth Rather post a single
> Forth function on comp.lang.forth --- but I'm betting on Gavino to be
> the first --- go, Gavino, go!
> All this talk about genius and I.Q. is nonsense. The I.Q. tests were
> invented by the eugenics folks to quantify the very unintelligent; to
> distinguish between morons and idiots and so forth. They didn't want
> to say, "Well, my neighbor's kid is dumb as a box of rocks, so lets
> kill him." They wanted to be scientific. By assigning everybody a
> number, they could achieve their goal without accusations of
> subjectivity (the neighbor's kid beat up their kid and they want
> revenge). The I.Q. tests were never intended to quantify genius, or
> even reasonable levels of intelligence --- anything over 100 is good,
> but I wouldn't assign any more meaning to it than that. I refuse to
> take I.Q. tests because doing so is a tacit approval of eugenics,
> which I am opposed to.
> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence."
Including the ones with more than the average number of legs or not?
> On Jun 28, 12:18 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:59:08 AM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> > > John go fuck your self.
> > I wish. Maybe more yoga.
> I have yet to see Gavino, Passaniti or Elizabeth Rather post a single
> Forth function on comp.lang.forth --- but I'm betting on Gavino to be
> the first --- go, Gavino, go!
> All this talk about genius and I.Q. is nonsense. The I.Q. tests were
> invented by the eugenics folks to quantify the very unintelligent; to
> distinguish between morons and idiots and so forth. They didn't want
> to say, "Well, my neighbor's kid is dumb as a box of rocks, so lets
> kill him." They wanted to be scientific. By assigning everybody a
> number, they could achieve their goal without accusations of
> subjectivity (the neighbor's kid beat up their kid and they want
> revenge). The I.Q. tests were never intended to quantify genius, or
> even reasonable levels of intelligence --- anything over 100 is good,
> but I wouldn't assign any more meaning to it than that. I refuse to
> take I.Q. tests because doing so is a tacit approval of eugenics,
> which I am opposed to.
> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence."
average assumes 50%, thus you can't get a majority, by definition!
here are some forth functions!!
: hugh ." hugh is an interesting guy" ;
: question ." Right or wrong:" ;
: askhugh question hugh ;
Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>What is the average of 99, 99, 99, 99, and 150 ? What proportion of
>that population is below average?
Depends on which kind of average you mean. The median of these values
is 99, and 0% of this population is below this average.
On Jul 5, 9:05 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> >What is the average of 99, 99, 99, 99, and 150 ? What proportion of
> >that population is below average?
> Depends on which kind of average you mean. The median of these values
> is 99, and 0% of this population is below this average.
Like most intelligence tests, mine was unfair in that it tests
education rather than raw intelligence. I would really expect anybody
with an 8th-grade education to know the definition of "average" though
(there is only one definition). I give people this intelligence test
all of the time, and very few pass. Most of the people in the world
are what I call a "solid-90" --- they are not tards riding the short
bus and licking the windows, and they are proud of this fact, but all
of their accomplishments involve learning something by rote --- they
never really *think* at all. There are limits to how low intelligence
can go (below 70 and the person is a drooling imbecile, usually with
other health problems that will kill him during childhood). There are
no limits to how high intelligence can go however. If you graphed the
distribution, you would find a hump at about 90, with a sharp drop on
the left side and a long tail on the right side. There is almost
nobody below 70, but quite a few above 130, and an occasional genius
way the heck out there at 160 (although, as I said, the numbers become
increasingly meaningless the higher they go as there is no way to test
genius). Ironically, taking an I.Q. test is one of the dumber things
that people do (for the above stated reasons) --- I am unimpressed by
Mensa who brag that they are smarter than everybody else, not
considering that many people (me) haven't taken their test and aren't
going to.
BTW, I had a boss once who told me: "All data is normally
distributed." He was definitely a solid-90 --- he had an MBA though,
which is why he was the boss. He eventually fired me, although I
lasted for over a year, which is pretty good by my standards. Staying
employed is all about playing dumb.
> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence."
As the majority of people is non-Belgian, I must reject this absolutely discriminating question.
> All this talk about genius and I.Q. is nonsense. The I.Q. tests were
> invented by the eugenics folks to quantify the very unintelligent;
> [...]
> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
OK, I'll bite.
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence."
No. The preceding statement is neither true nor false.
On Jul 6, 9:35 am, Arnold Snarb <asn...@fdip.bad-monkeys.org> wrote:
> Hugh Aguilar asked:
> > Is the following statement true or false?
> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> > intelligence."
> No. The preceding statement is neither true nor false.
> Did I pass?
> --Arnold
Nope. They either do or they don't. True and false are the only
possibilities. This is not a difficult intelligence test; there are
only two possible answers, so guessing provides a good chance of
success --- but your answer has no chance of success because it is
impossible! Good job --- way to establish a baseline on intelligence!
Maybe it would help if you guys knew that the word "average" means the
mean --- the sum of the data values divided by the number of data.
Here is a programming challenge easy enough that even Gavino should
succeed at it (although I doubt that John Passaniti or Elizabeth
Rather can do it). Write a program in ANS-Forth to read a seq file
containing one integer per line. Calculate the following: range of
data, average of data, median of data, and how many data are above and
below the average.
For extra credit, generate a PostScript file that displays a bar-graph
of the distribution of data with the mean and median marked.
Everybody please wait a week or two with your answer, in order to give
Gavino time to write his program --- this challenge is mostly for his
benefit --- it is okay to give him hints (my own hint is to use the
novice package's lists), but let him write his own code before you
show him your code.
> Hugh Aguilar wrote at 05JUL2012:
> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence.
True. According to bell curve, an average person just means an idiot.
On Jul 7, 8:29 pm, jfong <jf...@ms4.hinet.net> wrote:
> > Hugh Aguilar wrote at 05JUL2012:
> > Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> > don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> > box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> > Is the following statement true or false?
> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> > intelligence.
> True. According to bell curve, an average person just means an idiot.
It is not a bell curve (normal distribution). It is steep on the left
side and gradual on the right side.
