Well, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.12088312]

/lit/ can do it. how about the "smartest" board on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.12088401]

>>12088312
Small.

[Anonymous No.12088403]

>>12088401
wrong.

[Anonymous No.12088409]

>>12088312
Large.

[Anonymous No.12088411]

>>12088312
1/8

[Anonymous No.12088428]

>>12088312
Already saw this as a 3Blue1Brown video. It's 1/8 if I remember correctly.

[Anonymous No.12088433]

>>12088411
>>12088428
Wow honey, that's great! Now mind explaining in your own words how you got there? :)

[Anonymous No.12088452]

>>12088433
How about you watch his fucking video you twat. He takes like 10 minutes explaining it with animations.

I think the basic argument was that the analogon in 1D (line with 2 points picked at random) would give you a probablity of 1/2, in 2D (circle with 3 points) gives you the chance 1/4 and in 3D you get 1/8. I don't remember everything about a video I haven't seen in years, and frankly I don't care.

[Anonymous No.12088460]

>>12088452
I see, you're not smart enough to explain it in your own words without referring me to a video (that regurgitated explanation you remembered was wrong btw). Understandable, it's not your fault - IQ is purely genetics. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.12088514]

>>12088428
>>12088411
>>12088409
>>12088403
>>12088452
So it's small.

>>12088460
It doesn't matter if you remember or deduce if you know. IQ is that you ware faced problem before and nothing else.

Repeating IQ tests can make you uberhuman, But we're all equally wrothless, IQ is not metrics of anything important, despite there's a corelation.

I don't like the idea that if two same appears one dissapears on the IQ tests and sociology infected like that, therefore I just can say, live your IQ daydream while you can and doesn't know how much it ruined your "human" part of subconscious mind.

[Anonymous No.12088541]

>>12088312
literally 0%

[Anonymous No.12088550]

>>12088514
>People who are gifted with more intelligence as me are evil.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that people who are lesser gifted as me are witch hunters.

>>12088312
12% and a bit. People are just geometrical retarded. I hope we build our utopia of an automated world. Whit machines who run for thousands of years. Then your offspring degenerates, the machines slowly decay and the all rek on hunger.

[Anonymous No.12088675]

>>12088550
You don't know how to round. It's 13%

[Anonymous No.12088684]

>>12088312
>3blue1brown did a video about this

[Anonymous No.12088704]

>>12088460
This post inspired me to think about it myself before rewatching the video (not that anon BTW).
If you start by looking at a circle instead and 3 points, you see that when you have added 2 points you subdivide the circle into 4 region and only in one of them can the third point lie so that the center of circle lies in the triangle. Now instead of choosing the 2 points you could first fix one point and the choose 2 lines. For each line, a point lying at the end. Now in only 1/4 of the outcomes will the original point lie in the region opposite to the two points. By symmetry, the probability is 1/4.
Now in the 2-sphere case we do the same thing.
Fix one point, consider how the other three lie. Instead of distributing points, we distribute pairs of points (determined by lines through the center). For each such distribution of pairs, in only one of them does the center of the sphere lie in the tetrahedron. Thus since there are 8 equally likely ways to put the points when you have 3 pairs, the probability we want is 1/8.
It's been a while since I saw the video and it's been fun to think it through again :)

[Anonymous No.12088739]

>/lit/ can google it
FTFY

[Anonymous No.12089336]

>>12088739
>FTFY
please, please go back. there is enough for you on r*ddit.

[Anonymous No.12089476]

1 in 4 with a circle, just cube it instead so 1 in 8
Are you moes stupid or something?
Looked up 3blue1brown and it's an 11 minute video. NOPE

[Anonymous No.12090611]

>>12088312
There is a very significant overlap between /sci/ and /lit/ users.