Hello,



More of my philosophy about IQ tests and more of my thoughts..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


I think i am highly smart, and I have passed two certified IQ tests and i have scored above 115 IQ, but i have just passed more and more IQ tests, and i have just noticed that the manner in wich we test with IQ tests is not correct, since in an IQ test
you can be more specialized and above average in one subtest of intelligence than in another subtest of intelligence inside an IQ test, since IQ tests test for many kind of intelligences such as the spatial and speed and calculations and logical
intelligence etc. so i think that you can be really above average in logical intelligence , but at the same time you can be below average in calculations, so since an IQ test doesn't test for this kind of specializations of intelligence, so it is not
good, since testing for this kind specializations in intelligence is really important so that to be efficient by knowing the strong advantages of this or that person in
every types of intelligences.

And about the importance of specialization, read my following thoughts about it:


More precision about more of my philosophy about specialization and about quality and about Adam Smith and more of my thoughts..

I think i am highly smart, and i have passed two certified IQ tests and i have scored above 115 IQ, and i will now talk about another important idea of Adam Smith the father of economic Liberalism, and it is about "specialization" in an economic system,
since i say that in an economic system we have to be specialized in doing a job so that to be efficient and productive, but not only that, but we have to specialize in doing a job in what we do better so that to be even more efficient and productive, and
we have to minimize at best the idle time or the wasting of time doing a job, since i can also say that this average idle time or wasting time of the workers working in parallel can be converted to a contention like in parallel programming, so you have
to minimize it at best, and you have to minimize at best the coherency like in parallel programming so that to scale much better, and of course all this can create an economy of scale, and also i invite you to read my following smart and interesting
thoughts about scalability of productivity:

I will talk about following thoughts from the following PhD computer scientist:

https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/

Read more here his thoughts about productivity:

https://lemire.me/blog/2012/10/15/you-cannot-scale-creativity/

And i think he is making a mistake:

Since we have that Productivity = Output/Input

But better human training and/or better tools and/or better human smartness and/or better human capacity can make the Parallel productivity part much bigger that the Serial productivity part, so it can scale much more (it is like Gustafson's Law).

And it looks like the following:

About parallelism and about Gustafson’s Law..

Gustafson’s Law:

• If you increase the amount of work done by each parallel
task then the serial component will not dominate
• Increase the problem size to maintain scaling
• Can do this by adding extra complexity or increasing the overall
problem size

Scaling is important, as the more a code scales the larger a machine it
can take advantage of:

• can consider weak and strong scaling
• in practice, overheads limit the scalability of real parallel programs
• Amdahl’s law models these in terms of serial and parallel fractions
• larger problems generally scale better: Gustafson’s law


Load balance is also a crucial factor.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)