IQ Tests: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » IQ Tests » IQ Tests

IQ Tests

Page: 1 2 3 4

IQ Tests

K.
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Location: Seattle

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/03/06 - 10:49 AM:	#11
select wrote: Or this could be an existential matter. In predicate logic, some would require that at least one mip exists, whereas all doesn't require that any mips exist. This sounds like an ambiguous problem Not necessarily. All entails that there must be Some. If we made the statement that we had only Some, then yes we would have at least one mip. However, because we are saying all, then we can say that there must be some. Some is a proper subset of All in this sense. Cuthbert wrote: But often in ordinary conversation "Some Xs are Ys" would imply that some Xs aren't Ys. So if I'm out with a group of four children and someone asks if they are my children and I say "Some of these children are mine", then I've made a very misleading statement, if in fact all of them are mine. So I'd say the conclusion 'Some mips are nips' is misleading Using your example, you say that some of them are yours, but you are not denying that all of them are yours. You are saying that at least some of them are yours, but all of them could also be yours. The characterizing axiom of Deontic Logic is Lp->Mp, or Necessarily p implies Possibly p, or All p implies at least one p.
"'Everyone strives to reach the Law,' says the man, 'so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?' The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and, to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: 'No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.' -Franz Kafka, The Trial

johnhq
Apathetic Intellectual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2006
Location: University of Georgia

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 86

Posted 03/03/06 - 10:54 AM:	#12
Just a reminder, I'm sure you know, but IQ tests cost hundreds of dollars. If you're not being administered a real IQ test, chances are high that the results aren't to any degree accurate.
"I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Owen
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2004

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 692

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/04/06 - 10:32 AM:	#13
numbcomfort wrote: All Mips are Mops, and all Mops are Nips, so SOME mips are nips. Is this true or false or neither? It depends on the logic you are using. It is true in Aristotle's Syllogistic (traditional logic), but it is not true in Predicate Logic (classical logic). In classical logic; All Mips are Mops, and all Mops are Nips, so SOME mips are nips, ..is not valid, it requires the additional premise that there are some Mips. All A's are B's, means, For all x: (x is an A) -> (x is a B). Some A's are B's, means, For some x: (x is an A) & (x is a B). (For all x: x is an A) -> (For some x: x is an A) is valid, but, (For all x: (x is an A) -> (x is a B)) -> (For some x: (x is an A) & (x is a B)) is valid, only if, there is at least one x such that it is an A. That is to say: There are Mips, and all Mips are Mops, and all Mops are Nips, so SOME mips are nips. ..is valid. and what about "all mips are mops, and all mops are nips, so ALL mips are nips" This is valid in either logic. and finally: "Assume that these two statements are true: All brown-haired men have bad tempers. Larry is a brown-haired man. The statement Larry has a bad temper is: true, false" It is clearly valid. Note: all names are thought to be unique. All brown-haired men have bad tempers, and, Larry is a brown-haired man, implies, Larry has a bad temper. i.e. ((All A's are B's) & (x is an A)) -> (x is a B), is valid. (for all of the variables used) Forgive me if I'm still being ignorant to the obvious truth of A's are B's and B's are C's so A's are C's. But isn't this sometimes false? I mean. In that statment you made, does a father HAVE to be human? I don't know the exact definition for it, but I think other species can have fathers. So what I'm saying is, isn't it possible in some "real world" circumstances that this type of logic is wrong? Not within Syllogistic or classical logic. "All fathers are men, all men are human, therefore all fathers are human." is of the form: ((All x; (x is an A) -> (x is a B)) & (All x; (x is a B) -> (x is a C))) -> (All x; (x is an A) -> (x is a C)), ..which is necessarily true, ie. it is a theorem of classical logic. The premise "All fathers are men" excludes other possibilities. If x is a father then x is a man, for all x's ...is what is presumed in that argument. IF, All fathers are men, and All men are human, THEN, it follows logically that, All fathers are human. Edited by Owen on 03/04/06 - 10:38 AM

numbcomfort
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2005

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 33

Posted 03/04/06 - 08:44 PM:	#14
Now that you've all pointed out repeatedly to me that the questions are just asking if they make sense within' themselves it makes more sense. I've never really been good at grasping...or rather acepting logic. I always seem to look for outside things that cause it not to be true, or that prove the statment is an illusion. I think I look at it too much as a person and not as much as anylizing it. as a very crude example: It's like me looking at 3 kids getting a ball, and all of them throwing it. If this was a logic problem, it would be something like, "kid's get balls, kid's with balls throw balls, therefore all kids throw balls," I look at this like, "Well, theres only three kids there," or even, "I wonder how there parents raised them to throw balls..." (on account of my psychologyish way of thinking). But it is true in the frame of refrence of my current state of watching the 3 kids throw the balls, that all kids I've seen thus far in this moment, do indeed throw balls. Am I understanding this now?
A Door Left when Door Go. ~Andy Harris

Tsuyoiko
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Location: The Ancient Lake

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 67

Posted 03/07/06 - 07:56 AM:	#15
numbcomfort wrote: Now that you've all pointed out repeatedly to me that the questions are just asking if they make sense within' themselves it makes more sense. That's the key to it. Forget what you know about men, bachelors, mips and nips in real life. Take the 'all' in the problem literally. johnhq wrote: Just a reminder, I'm sure you know, but IQ tests cost hundreds of dollars. If you're not being administered a real IQ test, chances are high that the results aren't to any degree accurate. So if I didn't pay a bundle it must be crap? I can't see the logic there I'm afraid Owen wrote: It depends on the logic you are using. True. But I think IQ tests assume no theoretical knowledge of logic - just a layman's understanding. However, whoever wrote the test should have anticipated the ambiguity and should have stuck to the 'all' option only.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 03/07/06 - 08:44 AM:	#16
johnhq wrote: Just a reminder, I'm sure you know, but IQ tests cost hundreds of dollars. If you're not being administered a real IQ test, chances are high that the results aren't to any degree accurate. I did a personal experiment on on-line IQ tests. I have had a 'legitimate' test done, and scored 138. I have done a number of online tests, and in most score 130-140. I have also scored as low as 115, if I recall correctly (might have been lower). The general trend that I noticed was that I wasn't likely to score much higher than my legit test, but I might score dramatically lower. I realise of course that this isn't conclusive, by any means, but it is actual evidence rather than an assumption that variations in price and availability of a test will broadly affect variations in the accuracy of the test.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Petunia
silent muse

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2005
Location: Cold North, brrrrrrr

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 1071

Posted 03/07/06 - 09:08 AM:	#17
Reformed Nihilist wrote: I score about the same as the thread starter, and have no formal education in logics or critical thinking (I did idealise Mr. Spock when I was a kid though). He must be better than me at the spatial stuff. So did I! Mr. Spock is extremely cool. (Except in some of his music videos, but we forgive these anomalies) johnhq wrote: Just a reminder, I'm sure you know, but IQ tests cost hundreds of dollars. If you're not being administered a real IQ test, chances are high that the results aren't to any degree accurate. I would rely on the official tests for their results, sine they are more accurate. The online tests are too short, and you are perhaps rated against a smaller sample? As a point of interest, just about everyone I know who has taken an online IQ test scores around 130. Hmmmmmm It just makes me wonder a smidge.
Peer over the precipice

Everlife
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/07/06 - 09:15 AM:	#18
The accuracy of legal IQ tests is still in question, just so you all know. I, personally, try not to base all my beliefs on uncertain foundations. Not to imply that the IQ tests we've all taken are invalid.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 03/10/06 - 06:48 AM:	#19
K. wrote: Using your example, you say that some of them are yours, but you are not denying that all of them are yours. You are saying that at least some of them are yours, but all of them could also be yours. OK, here's the conversation: Bright lady: Oh, four children, and all so cute. Are they yours? Me: Well, some of them are mine. Bright lady: How lovely. Which ones - let me guess - no, tell me! Me: This one. Bright lady: I could have told that! He looks like his dad! Me: And this one. Bright lady: Yes, I can see the resemblance. Me: And this one. Bright lady: How nice. Me: And, finally, this one. Bright lady: Um. OK. (exit, whispering to friend and looking suspiciously over her shoulder.) So it's the kind of talk you can do in philosophy but you wouldn't get away with it in real life. According to the most up-to-date tests I have an IQ level somewhere between that of a digestive biscuit and a squirrel.

JohnG
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2006

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 03/10/06 - 03:28 PM:	#20
Cuthbert wrote: OK, here's the conversation: Bright lady: Oh, four children, and all so cute. Are they yours? Me: Well, some of them are mine. Bright lady: How lovely. Which ones - let me guess - no, tell me! Me: This one. Bright lady: I could have told that! He looks like his dad! Me: And this one. Bright lady: Yes, I can see the resemblance. Me: And this one. Bright lady: How nice. Me: And, finally, this one. Bright lady: Um. OK. (exit, whispering to friend and looking suspiciously over her shoulder.) So it's the kind of talk you can do in philosophy but you wouldn't get away with it in real life. But surely in your conversation, it's the bright lady who's "at fault" (or rather, misunderstanding the completely true statement you made that some of them are yours)? I failed an IQ test at school.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.