w=f[z]

Seems like to be invisible, the object in question must be 100% transparent. And then, I suppose it would have to be 100% transparent to all radiation. Oh yeah... and it mustn't emit any radiation. Seems impossible off hand.... Cheers

Ask the audience questions. Make them feel like participants instead of spectators. Cheers

Farsight, Perhaps people would respond better if you were more humble. Cheers

Did Hawking's theory of everything include the fact that I could kick Xerxes' ass in fisticuffs...? Yes... perhaps it was not in good taste. [Edit:] I apologize. I didn't mean to be so insensitive.

Did Hawking's theory of everything include the fact that I could kick his ass in fisticuffs...?

I think we first have to ask "what is a ghost?" and the characteristics of such beings, e.g., they seem intelligent (as opposed to a plant), they pass through walls, etc. Once we have a starting point, ask what it would take to satisfy the basic assumptions, and these criteria must not break the laws of physics. I would bet that we cannot have a system that satisfies our assumptions about ghosts which is logically consistent with the laws of physics. If anyone wants to start a list of basic assumptions on what a ghost is and its characteristics, it might be fun to see how that fits with the laws of physics and go from there. Cheers, w=f[z]

I'm not sure I want to touch this, but I've seen pictures... I've seen pictures of women with dogs. Clearly the dog was "consenting".... Cheers

This question became quite controversial on another forum. I recall that a cyber-fistfight broke out.

Something I'll add that I haven't read here yet... If you are going to teach yourself a subject, it would have to be in your spare time (i.e., after work and on weekends). That's one advantage a Ph.D. has - while they're getting the degree, that is their fulltime job. So I guess the learning process is a bit more efficient for the Ph.D. student. Cheers

Just so we're all on the same page (including myself...) - So the status of this problem is as follows: The original problem (let's call "P1") still remains unsolved as far as the values of the letters (unless river-rat's are correct). If RR's values are correct, then the pattern seems tougher than the second version of this problem. The second (pdf) version (let's call "P2") has been solved for the letters (except j, q, x, & y) by cjohnso0 (and spyman). The pattern between the letters remains unsolved. P2 was solved by linear-algebra techniques (& excel) omitting any of the names (so that we get an augmented matrix-type problem), but P1 requires the omission of only certain names - which seems to require more knowledge in order to determine which ones to omit. Once that is done, then linear-algebra techniques give the values (such as the ones river-rat got). Did I get all that right? River-rat, did you get your values by reducing an augmented matrix omitting only certain names? I'm not sure I caught exactly how you got your values (i.e., the technique). Cheers, w=f[z]

These were the instructions on my version (annoyingly enough... not on the pdf link). I'll type in what I have so forgive any typos. A few comments; This test is no longer on their site, so I thought posting this problem here was fair game now. Also notice their mention of "advanced mathematics" and "reference materials." And here's a minor nitpick, but they encourage "guessing." While guessing might increase your IQ "score" (if you guess correctly)... a correct answer by guessing I don't think is an accurate reflection of one's real IQ (whatever that is...). Okay, so there are the rules that came with the test. The use of computers was fair game. Cheers

Hi doG, Take a look at the other questions on the test (a link to the pdf was provided). Normally I'd agree with you, but this test had no time limit (unlike most internet IQ tests) and the other questions are pretty tough too. My take, is that the folks that would do well on this test would be able to teach themselves the necessary skills needed to answer the questions. Just a thought. Cheers

I might also add an admonition to not confuse mass with matter - an easy mistake to make. Cheers

Hi RR, Thanks, but I think cjohnso0 found the correct values. They seem to work (at least for all the names I tried...). So I probably don't need your mathematica notebook. Thanks though! I think it's a matter of finding the pattern (if there is one...). Nothing jumps out at me yet. Cheers, w=f[z]

Excel... damn, I was trying Maple and Mathematica when good ol' Excel would have done the job. So... if the letters go from 1 to 26, then j, q, x, and y can have possible values of 1, 19, 25, & 26. Which is which is yet to be determined. I am going to give Excel a shot when I get time. Thanks! Edit: It seems like there are only three possibilities; 1. the values were assigned randomly, or 2. there is a pattern in the numbers themselves, or 3. the numbers were mapped to each name/physicist. If 1, then there is no hope of finding y except for guessing (1 out of 4 chance). If 3, then one would need the "key" to decipher the code. My initial guess is that it is 2 - as that would be the easiest to implement (a formula so to speak). The fact that they redid the question (i.e., new values to the names compared to what I originally worked from) makes me even that more confident that it is possibility 2. Cheers