> I think that's a gross oversimplification. It would be remarkable if such a
> crucial aspect of intelligence could be measured with just one number, you
> need 2 to measure something even as simple as the wind, one for speed and one
> for direction. I imagine that for a good measure of intelligence you'd need a
> Tensor, and a big one.
Apart from uttering a strong "Mee, too!" I cannot help but to notice
strong paralleles to modern computer performs benchmarks, which now offer
a zillion of different mosaic metrics, incollapsible to a single scalar,
without losing all relevance to applied comparativistics.
This is not a superficial coincidence, imo.
But "faster than" is a mapping into the boolean domain... 42? Agreed.
[...]
ciao,
'gene