yes, all (mis)spellings are intentional.
a dialogue between me and ed about intelligence
ed: we are geniuses man what are your thughts on that
jonathan: i do believe that that is quite a brilliant thesis
ed:Â i too also believe
jonathan:Â please provide evidence
ed: i absolutely concur evidence? my good sir i would have to suppose for the sake of a contrapositive that if we are not idiots, then we are not smart. we know that we are not idiots. hence if we assume the converse of the statement has a positive truth statement it follows that without a loss of generaility that we are not idiots, so we must thus be smart as required qed
jonathan: you raise quite a brilliant point, my good fellow. however, converses are not always true, hence one could argue that your proof is false
ed: ah, i completely understand your point, my good friend, however i believe that if you consider the implications of our statement with the riemann hypothesis, you will come to the shcoking conclusion that by analysing the rate of which the forward and reverse reactions in the equilibrium are affected by a change in the state of subdivision of the reactant, one realises that regardless of whether the riemann hypothesis is true then the statement is true. Hence as the riemann hypothesis can either be true or not true, it follows the statement is always true as required. furthermore if you consider that the litmus molecule is blue after having ionised a single hydrogen, one realises that the combustion of said organic molecule results in a redox reaction between the organic substance and oxygen, which is contrary to the expected halogen displacement reaction, hence one takes the partial derivative and can thus prove that we are intelligent
jonathan: ah, i see your argument, and raise a counterpoint. i believe that if you take into account the tragedy of the commons and its activation state, by analysing the enthalpy created by the infinite path of a unit vector, you can thus conclude that despite the enthalpy created, one’s statement can be inherently false. furthermore, if you look at the unit vector created by the air resistance of the sound waves, one may see that the unit vector gradually dissipates over time due to energy absorbance, which is contrary to our statement that the unit vector’s path is infinite, thus one takes the combination and permutation of all factors and can thus conclude that there is a slight chance that we are not, in fact, intelligent, and perhaps actually idiots
ed: that is potentially a case, however i feel that you are missing the point, and may be missing a few cases. for example, consider the case that we are averaging over 9592 in methods, which is true. hence it follows as people who average 9592 are smart people , we are thus smart as required. i understand your reasoning for using the classic unit vector proof, however i do believe that if you consider the arctan of the segment and extrapolates this value into the complex plane, projecting this data through the triangle inequality ends up suggesting that we are infact human beings, which is a key determinant in us being smart. if we take this a step further and take the nested root of i, using feynmann parametization, can conclude that there is a 7C5/8C5 probability that we are intelligence, it follows that if we are humans, and there is a 7C5/8C5 probability that we are intelligence, one can conclude that there is a high likelihood that we are intelligence people. i do hope you get better at exploring your proofs, perhaps consider adding a galvanic cell into your brain and then increase the hydroxide concentration to favour the reactive process of the lead-acid battery accumulator.
jonathan: your point is quite valid, however i have noticed a fatal flaw. the kinetic energy combined with the potential energy and normal force creates an overflow of dispersion forces, meaning that the electrons will move more rapidly. furthermore, hydrogen bonding will also occur at the equilibrium point, meaning that the Sartre hypothesis will prove correct, that our lives are meaningless without purpose, and from this we can conclude, that, by choosing 8 objects from 6, we can further support our point. another point of interest will occur when you consider the inelastic collision created by the collision of our 2 arguments. by analysing your findings, you will discover that the energy created after the collision is greater than the energy in the system before. this means that the process is energetically favourable and thus is soluble in the liquid of human thought. thus, by passing this through the darwinism theory, we can thus conclude that some part of your argument may be partly false.
ed: i see what you mean, however as the legendary erik satie once said, “De manière à obtenir un creux”, i.e. “so as to be a hole”. I feel that you have fallen into the classic trap, the hole if you will, of considering the average kinetic energy of ideal gas particles, and applying this to elastic collisions, which would be correct if we were to assume that we live in a 3-dimensional universe, however as we made the question we cannot simply assume such a bold claim. your thesis has to account for more than just a 3-dimensional reality, and thus i propose we use string theory to consider the many possible dimensions possible. furthermore, your logic falls apart when you consider elastic collisions, as we know from the author of the book “physics”, dr waters has said that elastic collisions only occur for ideal gas particles, and as humans while we may consist of some gasses, we simply cannot state that humans themselves are gas particles, as we are actually made of multiple substances, that transfer electrons through the process known as redox, i.e. reduction and oxidation, and this process yield thats we must derive a compromise function for the manufacturing of ammonia in the equilibrium system n2 + 3h2 <–> 2nh3. we know this reaction is exothermic, hence we must find a point where x = e^ln(5), it follows that the compromise is a moderate temperature and a high pressure, which further implies that not only are we moving close to the speed of sound, we do so by emitting intelligence rays, hence we are a point source of intelligence, so we are thus intelligent beings.
jonathan: your point most definitely is well defined. however, as the great strategist Sun Tzu once said, “Suǒyǒu de zhà nzhēng dōu jià nlì zà i qīpià n zhī shà ng”, or “all war is based on deceit”. you see, i had left out a crucial fact in my argument, a slight amount of deceit, if you will, which would be, that if you consider the theory of relativity, and the homogenous mixture created from this, and show that the spherical wavelets created from this are actually not tangent to the new wavefront, and instead propagate parallel to the wavefront, and in fact touch at all angles. one can thus reason from this that the highest point of the parabola will intersect where the activation energy required with a catalyst is equal to the square root of the added mass of the reactants, and from this we can gain a net value for x, and thus determine the domain. futhermore, if you consider the ramifications of the animalia kingdom, you will find that in the translation, when the messenger RNA is sent, another particle is actually ejected, known as confusin, or the “stupid” protein. this potentially activates inside ones brain, and renders one argument as incoherent, thus your argument could potentially be incorrect. i would like to conclude with a statement, that we are now chilling, bing chlling if you will.