Savants and cubing

[shelley]

Specifically, I'm not positive of this, but I believe there are irregularities in the calendar that would throw him off if he didn't know the changes. I just looked at year 800, and with my algorithm, I would get those dates wrong, so it doesn't make sense, especially with a human invention, to just "know" what day it is.

I learned how to calculate day of the week, and in the process I learned way too much about calendars. In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII decided to switch from the Julian calendar to the calendar we use today (the Gregorian calendar adds leap days to century years only if they are divisible by 400. Julian calendar just had leap years every 4 years and was about 10 days off from the solar cycle at that time).

Italy and other Catholic countries (mostly in southern Europe) adopted the Gregorian calendar around that time. The Protestant countries were slower to catch on. In the 1700s Sweden tried dropping all of their leap days for 40 years instead of dropping 10 days all at once (apparently ignoring the fact that this would put them out of sync with both the Julian and Gregorian calendars for 40 years). The system was poorly administered (partly due to the Great Northern War breaking out at the time) and the leap days that should have been dropped in 1704 and 1708 weren't. King Charles of Sweden decided to revert to the Julian calendar by adding an extra leap day to February in 1712, resulting in a February 30, 1712 (but only in Sweden).

Most of the Protestant European countries switched over in the mid 1700s. England made the switch in September of 1752, which is why when you type

cal 9 1752

in the terminal of a UNIX system you see a rather funny looking calendar.

tl;dr: When you looked at the year 800 it was on the Julian calendar, not the calendar we use now, which is why your algorithm doesn't work. Also, there was a February 30 in Sweden. Funny story.

 

[bwatkins]

StefanPochmann it seems you just enjoy arguing. It makes me sick when i see you tear apart what people have to say like this. It's wonderful you have an opinion, but you speak as if your the final word, final authority, on the subject...in fact on many, you do it a lot and it's just appalling. You have a horribly negative vibe to yourself on the forums, it definitely takes away the joy of reading the forums...go ahead and tear my post apart, more fresh meat, have the final word, we all know you love to.

 

[Stefan]

I don't care if other people can do it better with years of practice

What the ... ? It's the unemployed autistics fed by their parents who have all the time in the world to practice!

If someone came along and could solve the cube in 50 moves without knowing any algorithms or any specific method, and while being of below-average intelligence too, I think I would be impressed.

Yeah yeah yeah... IF. Show me one. Then we can talk about it.

There may be people who can look at a field of 80 numbers for a few seconds and then write them all out later

Yeah yeah yeah... MAY. Show me one. Then we can talk about it.

Plus that example is perfectly suitable for proper testing. I don't insist that "savants" do exactly stuff that others do. Others can adapt to what the "savants" showcase. And btw, Daniel Tammet, together with Kim Peek and Stephen Wiltshire probably the greatest media darling among the "savants", *did* participate in memory competitions and *did* do a Pi recitation record attempt like normal people. He just wasn't nearly as good as them.

 

[shelley]

StefanPochmann it seems you just enjoy arguing. It makes me sick when i see you tear apart what people have to say like this. It's wonderful you have an opinion, but you speak as if your the final word, final authority, on the subject...in fact on many, you do it a lot and it's just appalling. You have a horribly negative vibe to yourself on the forums, it definitely takes away the joy of reading the forums...go ahead and tear my post apart, more fresh meat, have the final word, we all know you love to.

There's a difference between being negative and being skeptical. There's something to be said about not taking everything you hear at face value.

 

[Stefan]

It makes me sick when i see you tear apart what people have to say like this.

Good. Apparently you're among the people who most need a wake-up call.

It's wonderful you have an opinion

Look again and you'll see that *I'm* the one presenting actual evidence and thinking rather than poor hearsay. Check the videos I showed you. Check what they say. Check that he only repeated the same digit cycle again and again. That's not opinions. That's facts you can verify yourself.

About me enjoying this: I'd actually much rather see people think for themselves already. What I don't like are naive stupidity and spreading myths and glorifying the wrong people, that's what motivates me to try to make people think.

 

[bwatkins]

StefanPochmann it seems you just enjoy arguing. It makes me sick when i see you tear apart what people have to say like this. It's wonderful you have an opinion, but you speak as if your the final word, final authority, on the subject...in fact on many, you do it a lot and it's just appalling. You have a horribly negative vibe to yourself on the forums, it definitely takes away the joy of reading the forums...go ahead and tear my post apart, more fresh meat, have the final word, we all know you love to.

There's a difference between being negative and being skeptical. There's something to be said about not taking everything you hear at face value.

i would 100% agree but i dont read the forums very frequently but most the posts of S.P. seem to be constant questioning and just have a bad vibe. It could be that i dont completly understand who S.P. is but it just seems negative and more than anything the sarcasm and verbiage used gives the posts a negative tone.

 

[bwatkins]

It makes me sick when i see you tear apart what people have to say like this.

Good. Apparently you're among the people who most need a wake-up call.

It's wonderful you have an opinion

Look again and you'll see that *I'm* the one presenting actual evidence and thinking rather than poor hearsay.

your right, YOU, are the one presenting evidence. Is that because YOU have to be correct, YOU have to be the one who's more educated on the subject? I'm sure if ANYONE took the time and effort to go research the subject, THEY TOO could find evidence that that proves YOU wrong.

That's the beauty of these conversations, anyone can have the final word with a proper set of research. With the correct "evidence" or resources any subjects can lean to either side.

And no i dont need a wake up call i just don't find the need to point out all the "flaws" in what other people say...

 

[Stefan]

your right, YOU, are the one presenting evidence. Is that because YOU have to be correct, YOU have to be the one who's more educated on the subject?

I don't know why others don't do it (though I'm *not* the only one), you have to ask *them*. Or yourself, as you aren't helping, either.

And I would *love* to be proven wrong about this subject. Please do!

 

[bwatkins]

your right, YOU, are the one presenting evidence. Is that because YOU have to be correct, YOU have to be the one who's more educated on the subject?

I don't know why others don't do it (though I'm *not* the only one), you have to ask *them*. Or yourself, as you aren't helping, either.

And I would *love* to be proven wrong about this subject. Please do!

Your right I'm not helping and i dont want to further contaminate the thread with off topic discussion, i was just frustruated as i sat down for a break form some c++ ballistics programming to read some interesting material and found a large amount of bickering (probably not the correct word choice).

I don't have any further knowledge of THIS particular subject, so unfortuanetly im not able to prove you wrong, in fact you could be CORRECT however a lighter less sarcastic attitude would be appreciated im sure.

I believe that the reason others dont take the time to find evidence or resources as you do is that they are reading the threads to to read, to have exposure to new ideas, they aren't necessarily concerned with what it 100% correct, just the exposure to thoughts they wouldn't have on their own...thats why i ended up here.

 

[Stefan]

large amount of bickering (probably not the correct word choice).

Right, "information" or "education" would be more appropriate.

 

[Olivér Perge]

however a lighter less sarcastic attitude would be appreciated im sure.

Stefan doesn't want to hurt anyone, he is just stating facts about the subject in his own style.

If discussions like that don't improve the world in a good way, what does?

 

[bwatkins]

large amount of bickering (probably not the correct word choice).

Right, "information" or "education" would be more appropriate.

Yes, it is information and education. However, the tone and sarcasm of the material gives it the "bickering" feel. Perhaps it starts with posts like this...

That bull**** again?

And continue on from there.

As it is obvious the both of us will not be on the same page, we must agree to disagree. Have a good Christmas and Goodbye.

 

[Stefan]

Perhaps it starts with posts like this...

That bull**** again?

Alright, apologies for that one. Edited, made it friendlier. This kind of stuff just pisses me off so much...

 

[LewisJ]

While you're right about the /109 guy being a rather easy to setup test, having watched the documentary on Daniel Tammet and done a fair amount of my own reading, there were obviously tests done that weren't setup or easy to do as you claimed. You're trying to push everything aside and call it all a huge facade when there is undeniably impressive evidence of his abilities. He doesn't have the world record as you say (a measly 6th place) but he memorized over 22,000 digits in two weeks. The world record with 67,890 said he took a year to learn the digits and the former world record holder with 42195 said he took ten years to learn them. And surely it was staged that in a week he learned Icelandic well enough to converse on TV!

 

[ender9994]

Just out of curiosity, whats every ones take on this? (its an excerpt from a documentary about Daniel {a mental calculator who *supposedly* has the images represented by colors/images without any calculation})

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m6s-ulE6LY&feature=related

 

[Dene]

I have long since learnt that Mr. Pochmann is not a fan of anecdotal evidence. And as we both know (me and Mr. Pochmann), very little scientific studies have been done on savants. Therefore it is up to the individual to hold a position on the subject matter. Personally, I myself hold a position that is probably slightly more skeptical than qqwref's, but otherwise very similar. The way I see it, the fact that these people are clearly autistic, with mental retardation in some areas but some sort of intellectual extremism in other areas, it would be a bit silly to deny that something abnormal is going on here.

 

[qqwref]

I assume it's this? (hopefully that link works, let me know if not)
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=c4p16721h27264t1&size=largest
Yeah, seems really reputable.

You're challenging a report on *mathematical* grounds? The paper there is completely ridiculous because all it proves is that the book did not contain *all* 10-digit primes, which is pretty obvious anyway. I'm pretty sure books that contain some 10-digit primes exist. Besides, even if Sacks made a mistake and the primes considered only went up to 6 digits, it's still impressive. I don't see how you don't think proving that a 6-digit number is prime (in your head, reasonably quickly) is trivial/unimpressive.

Great, more anecdotes...

If you're not going to believe any evidence unless it walks right up to you and proves itself, there's no point in arguing with you. It's pretty obvious that I don't have the resources to physically show you scientific proof that a specific skill is (a) possible and (b) more impressive than anything a normal person could do with practice. Your arguments are becoming more and more childish as time goes on, now it's just "show me everything or whatever you say is false"... where is the intelligent Stefan that used to exist?

 

[Stefan]

While you're right about the /109 guy being a rather easy to setup test, having watched the documentary on Daniel Tammet and done a fair amount of my own reading, there were obviously tests done that weren't setup or easy to do as you claimed.

I think you missed the point. The point was to give an easy to understand and verify example of the exaggerations, carelessness and lies in this area.

he memorized over 22,000 digits in two weeks.

Maybe that's true, but it just means that he was more focused. I did find that claim here:
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2003-04/mar/15.shtml

This also says he can memorize 1000 digits in 40 minutes. Compare that to these results from competitions:
http://web.aanet.com.au/memorysports/discipline.php?id=num30
Best is 1264 digits in 30 minutes, that sounds considerably better than Daniel. And the methods are rather scalable, so I believe if those top people bothered, they could do just as well as him concerning Pi. That's speculative, I admit, but learning 22000 digits in two weeks really seems rather like a question of determination. The guy who took ten years certainly didn't spend the full ten years memorizing it, that was a flawed argument.

And surely it was staged that in a week he learned Icelandic well enough to converse on TV!

I don't speak Icelandic and thus can't judge that performance. Who did? Can you? Also note that he did speak several languages already and that he devised two new languages himself. How similar are they to Icelandic? Do you know? And do you know how much he knew about Icelandic before? So... someone with quite a lot of experience with languages and fully determined and equipped to learn another one, then tested by a well-meaning TV show... yeah it sounds cool but I'm not really surprised.

 

[qqwref]

If someone came along and could solve the cube in 50 moves without knowing any algorithms or any specific method, and while being of below-average intelligence too, I think I would be impressed.

Yeah yeah yeah... IF. Show me one. Then we can talk about it.

It's an analogy, you retard. :fp

 

[Stefan]

If you're not going to believe any evidence unless it walks right up to you and proves itself, there's no point in arguing with you.

The point is not that *you* or the others here can't provide proper evidence or at least documentation. I don't blame you at all. The point is that the people who claim to have extraordinary abilities or the people who study them could easily provide proper documentation but don't. Which in turn is why it's then hard for *you* to find and show any here. They don't even care to provide enough information to meaningfully judge the abilities. Example from Kim Peek's wikipedia page:

"could read two pages at a time with a rate of about 8-10 seconds per page. It is believed he could recall the content of at least 12,000 books from memory"

What does "read" or "recall" mean here? Like that, these claims are worthless. People *do* make these claims and they're supposed to impress, but then why don't they provide enough information to actually assess the skill? And *why* was he "believed to recall blablabla"? Why oh why don't they tell us?

And if someone comes here and says he averages 7 seconds for the 3x3x3, do you go like "Awesome!" (without being sarcastic) or do you ask them to do it in a WCA competition? Hmm?