Is math more of intelligence than any other thing because it seems like it haha i guess Because to me intelligence seems mostly like problem solving ability and pattern recognition .

It really depends on what you mean as intelligence. If you define intelligence as what makes you good at math, then yes that will be the case due to circular reasoning. Intelligence is a catch all phrase, that has been used to refer to many things. There are numerous kinds of intelligence, ranging from abstract thinking, spatial ability, emotional quotient, communication skills, reasoning ability, etc.

Something else to be aware of, is that your exposure to math has been highly limited, and will change a lot when you go to University. In Grade 1, your opinion of math is likely just to find the value of \( 1 + 2\), and has nothing to do with problem solving or pattern recognition. This has changed over the years, as you get exposed to algebra, trigonometry, permuations and combinations, etc. Similarly, history is not a mere memorization of facts (which was the misconception that I had in high school), but is about understanding why 'history repeats itself', the interactions and motivations of groups of people.

I believe that it's possible to "learn" exercices, then, for a similar one, you would just change the number, but it's use is higtly restricted. If you did ask "why did the teacher did that, why didn't he do this?" then you'll understand the exercice (it depends a lot less effort than solving it alone, but it's better than nothing), and by understanding it, you might find other ways to solve it,and 3 or 4 different techniques for each exercice in your life, that's huge!!!
maths are not applying the rules so simply, without knowing WHY and HOW, in that case, it would be an imitation, and solving an exercice, not solving problems, like in our case.

for example, most the chessmasters can beat super-computers at chess, those SU have extra complicates algorithme, ad they loose, why? simply because they have in their memory techniques that allows them to surpass us in the normal cases, but do NOT forget that human can think, so he does a lot more than a mere application, he finds the rules! so he can handle evrything, and I say EVERYTHING, because I belive the only limit for the human mind, is the one human puts to hisself

Johnson, Godel's incompleteness theorem states that there is no complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics. This means that (regardless of your starting set of axioms) there are statements that you cannot establish the truth value. For example "This statement is false," is neither a true nor false statement.

You might claim that "well, we can clearly see that the statement can't be shown to be true or false". The second incompleteness theorem states that there are statement which cannot be shown to be "neither true nor false". This is an inherent limitation of any axiomatic system of Arithmetic (except for trivial ones)

the knowledge in the word is infinit, no matter how much you learn, the percentage of your knowledge will always be 0 (in fact reaaally near of 0 but no exactlu 0)

so all person are nearly the same intelligence, or atleast, it doesn't make a difference. the only thing that matters is the effort you do to better your self

Johnson, I think you're right,but, intelligence "includes" mental operations, but it is not so simply (Q £ R, but Q # R for example)
I think the intelligence would be the ability to adapt. The most of the times, a genius in maths is a genuis in everything else, why? I think because maths asks a lot of adapting ability, so I think maths help improve all other forms of intelligence.
I belive that being a genious can not be acquired throught experience, but we are born genius or we are not, but in the same time, you can have a genius's level. Being genius is intelligence, because simply, it can not be cultivated, so
you can not be more "genius" than yesterday

Calvin, I understand what you mean through Godel's incompleteness theorem. But I mean in cases like that one can see in physical reality such as a particle being able to go to every possible point of space in the universe hence we are not able to detect the exact position of that particle. But since it happens we could state that the axiom is that it has (randomness being the premise of reasoning) which can be defined by mathematics.

Intelligence includes ones ability to understand and very quickly at that as well. Intelligence can be defined as numerous things but to be more general I would probably say that if someone is intelligent he can perform mental operations much faster, more accurately, and more broadly then an average person which is inclusive of their ability to learn and not rote learning. In relation to Mathematics I was just wondering that does one have to be very intelligent to be considered a genius at mathematics or one has to be motivated and determined to work hard and learn new things. There maybe be a slight distinction between learning and understanding in that one could be able to do a process hence he has learnt but is not able to comprehend how the process is done.

Anas, I am interested in the distinction you draw between understanding and learning. By that do you mean, that it is possible to learn things without understanding? For instance mimicing the operations your teacher does on a chalkboard when you do math as opposed to understanding how math works? If so, then I agree, and think a major problem in how a lot of people are taught is that they are taught to learn with memorization and not understanding

Calvin
I think that everything in this world, is relative, like time, or space, or anything, So 1=2 can be true in some cases. like in biology for example, if you trigger a nerve flow (don't know if it's called so in english but still) from the leg in example, will make you have a feeling, but triggering it two consecutive times in same area will make you feel a much stronger one, (like 3times the first feeling).
I also bellieve that there are things human can not know, but gives it knowledge to God, if there is one (I belive so),or to Philosophy ,like the soul, the will, or, why a man that felt from 5km in the sky and didn't die when he hit the ground, and in the same time, a man died when he fell from the second flour....
And I also believe, that intelligence is the ability to understand, not to learn.
Maths, and logic lets you understand (ALMOST) everything, so it's definitely the sharpest form of intelligence, but now, they say there are other factors for the intelligence, so maths isn't everything.
that's at least, what I think.
What do YOU think?

But you can through logic and reasoning and there not being an answer in the process is an answer itself. The analogy you used with the statements seem to display the a paradoxical nature and as far as we know or can imagine, in nature paradoxes are always prevented.

I think that...
a) Mathematics and intelligence are concepts that nobody fully understand,
a') Therefore nobody can actually fundament any argument made on those concepts (Not even I, so this argument is unfunded).
b) There are questions that can't be answered simply because they do not have answers.
c) Statement d is true.
d) Statement c is false.
e) "Is statement c true?" is a problem that does not have an answer.
e') Therefore, it cannot be answered through mathematics.

To me, comparison of maths and intelligence is like considering different aspects of the same concept... Obviously it would depend upon what you define intelligence to be... But the point is, you can explain millions and billions of things happening around using mathematics ... and that's enough reason to say mathematics is crucial thus much comparable with intelligence...

@ Tim . Just because I cannot do it that doesn't mean it isn't possible. How can anything extend beyond the scope of logic/math/reasoning? I understand that it would be much easier to dream up new mathematics that to use logical principles, but still I truly believe mathematics/logic/ reasoning can solve anything, given enough time,resources, intelligence. If some new mathematics arrive it is and will always be the product of logic. By that I don't mean that to arrive at new mathematics you have to only use logic/reasoning/math I mean the fact that it is mathematics makes it logic. I guess it would make mathematics really a 'Universal language' that can be translated into physical phenomena.

I agree with Tim that not all problems in the world or in life can be solved mathematically (most probably can't). I agree with Johnson that learning new math requires tons of creativity, but that that creativity likely extends beyond the scope of reason/math/logic.
I do not even know how to begin setting up the math problem of the meaning of life. Even if there were a mathematical answer to the meaning of life, or if every possible question could be answered mathematically; would that make math the highest form of intelligence?

I cannot conceive of any problem that couldn't be solved by mathematics. Despite me not be very proficient at math I am pretty sure based on my beliefs that everything as far as we know it can be solved by Math/logic/reasoning. By intelligence I suppose you're right about there being many forms of it. I guess to put a frame on it would make it ever more hard to grasp. Personally, I think discovering 'new mathematics' requires a whole load of creativity.

Math seems to me like the highest form of intelligence as well. I think it is because I am decent at it and struggle a lot with it because I do a lot of it. I have never tried to write a symphony. I bet it takes a lot of intelligence.

I think many people think math is the smartest form of intelligence because few people really good at it. I think this is not because not many people are smart but because very few people try hard at math. Even people who are really good at math try hard at it.

In my opinion the ability to reason mathematically is a form of intelligence and an important one. I think there is much more to both math and intelligence than problem solving and pattern recognition. In the world, in logic, and in life, not all relationships worth recognizing express themselves as patterns. Not all things worth thinking about are problems that need to be solved, and even the ones that do often rarely lend themselves to mathematical formulation.

@Johnson There are definitely problems that cannot be solved by mathematics. Sometimes, it's not all about numbers. Even if they were solvable, our understanding of mathematics is not nearly enough to solve it.

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestIt really depends on what you mean as intelligence. If you define intelligence as what makes you good at math, then yes that will be the case due to circular reasoning. Intelligence is a catch all phrase, that has been used to refer to many things. There are numerous kinds of intelligence, ranging from abstract thinking, spatial ability, emotional quotient, communication skills, reasoning ability, etc.

Something else to be aware of, is that your exposure to math has been highly limited, and will change a lot when you go to University. In Grade 1, your opinion of math is likely just to find the value of \( 1 + 2\), and has nothing to do with problem solving or pattern recognition. This has changed over the years, as you get exposed to algebra, trigonometry, permuations and combinations, etc. Similarly, history is not a mere memorization of facts (which was the misconception that I had in high school), but is about understanding why 'history repeats itself', the interactions and motivations of groups of people.

Log in to reply

I believe that it's possible to "learn" exercices, then, for a similar one, you would just change the number, but it's use is higtly restricted. If you did ask "why did the teacher did that, why didn't he do this?" then you'll understand the exercice (it depends a lot less effort than solving it alone, but it's better than nothing), and by understanding it, you might find other ways to solve it,and 3 or 4 different techniques for each exercice in your life, that's huge!!! maths are not applying the rules so simply, without knowing WHY and HOW, in that case, it would be an imitation, and solving an exercice, not solving problems, like in our case.

for example, most the chessmasters can beat super-computers at chess, those SU have extra complicates algorithme, ad they loose, why? simply because they have in their memory techniques that allows them to surpass us in the normal cases, but do NOT forget that human can think, so he does a lot more than a mere application, he finds the rules! so he can handle evrything, and I say EVERYTHING, because I belive the only limit for the human mind, is the one human puts to hisself

what do you think?

Log in to reply

Johnson, Godel's incompleteness theorem states that there is no complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics. This means that (regardless of your starting set of axioms) there are statements that you cannot establish the truth value. For example "This statement is false," is neither a true nor false statement.

You might claim that "well, we can clearly see that the statement can't be shown to be true or false". The second incompleteness theorem states that there are statement which cannot be shown to be "neither true nor false". This is an inherent limitation of any axiomatic system of Arithmetic (except for trivial ones)

Log in to reply

This seems like a philosophical problem on Brilliant. Brilliant!(pun intented)

Log in to reply

the knowledge in the word is infinit, no matter how much you learn, the percentage of your knowledge will always be 0 (in fact reaaally near of 0 but no exactlu 0)

so all person are nearly the same intelligence, or atleast, it doesn't make a difference. the only thing that matters is the effort you do to better your self

Log in to reply

Actually they proved mathematical talent is mostly developed. I am assuming it is right based on their results.

Log in to reply

Johnson, I think you're right,but, intelligence "includes" mental operations, but it is not so simply (Q £ R, but Q # R for example) I think the intelligence would be the ability to adapt. The most of the times, a genius in maths is a genuis in everything else, why? I think because maths asks a lot of adapting ability, so I think maths help improve all other forms of intelligence. I belive that being a genious can not be acquired throught experience, but we are born genius or we are not, but in the same time, you can have a genius's level. Being genius is intelligence, because simply, it can not be cultivated, so you can not be more "genius" than yesterday

Log in to reply

Calvin, I understand what you mean through Godel's incompleteness theorem. But I mean in cases like that one can see in physical reality such as a particle being able to go to every possible point of space in the universe hence we are not able to detect the exact position of that particle. But since it happens we could state that the axiom is that it has (randomness being the premise of reasoning) which can be defined by mathematics.

Log in to reply

Intelligence includes ones ability to understand and very quickly at that as well. Intelligence can be defined as numerous things but to be more general I would probably say that if someone is intelligent he can perform mental operations much faster, more accurately, and more broadly then an average person which is inclusive of their ability to learn and not rote learning. In relation to Mathematics I was just wondering that does one have to be very intelligent to be considered a genius at mathematics or one has to be motivated and determined to work hard and learn new things. There maybe be a slight distinction between learning and understanding in that one could be able to do a process hence he has learnt but is not able to comprehend how the process is done.

Log in to reply

Anas, I am interested in the distinction you draw between understanding and learning. By that do you mean, that it is possible to learn things without understanding? For instance mimicing the operations your teacher does on a chalkboard when you do math as opposed to understanding how math works? If so, then I agree, and think a major problem in how a lot of people are taught is that they are taught to learn with memorization and not understanding

Log in to reply

Calvin I think that everything in this world, is relative, like time, or space, or anything, So 1=2 can be true in some cases. like in biology for example, if you trigger a nerve flow (don't know if it's called so in english but still) from the leg in example, will make you have a feeling, but triggering it two consecutive times in same area will make you feel a much stronger one, (like 3times the first feeling). I also bellieve that there are things human can not know, but gives it knowledge to God, if there is one (I belive so),or to Philosophy ,like the soul, the will, or, why a man that felt from 5km in the sky and didn't die when he hit the ground, and in the same time, a man died when he fell from the second flour.... And I also believe, that intelligence is the ability to understand, not to learn. Maths, and logic lets you understand (ALMOST) everything, so it's definitely the sharpest form of intelligence, but now, they say there are other factors for the intelligence, so maths isn't everything. that's at least, what I think. What do YOU think?

Log in to reply

But you can through logic and reasoning and there not being an answer in the process is an answer itself. The analogy you used with the statements seem to display the a paradoxical nature and as far as we know or can imagine, in nature paradoxes are always prevented.

Log in to reply

I think that... a) Mathematics and intelligence are concepts that nobody fully understand, a') Therefore nobody can actually fundament any argument made on those concepts (Not even I, so this argument is unfunded). b) There are questions that can't be answered simply because they do not have answers. c) Statement d is true. d) Statement c is false. e) "Is statement c true?" is a problem that does not have an answer. e') Therefore, it cannot be answered through mathematics.

Log in to reply

To me, comparison of maths and intelligence is like considering different aspects of the same concept... Obviously it would depend upon what you define intelligence to be... But the point is, you can explain millions and billions of things happening around using mathematics ... and that's enough reason to say mathematics is crucial thus much comparable with intelligence...

Log in to reply

@ Tim . Just because I cannot do it that doesn't mean it isn't possible. How can anything extend beyond the scope of logic/math/reasoning? I understand that it would be much easier to dream up new mathematics that to use logical principles, but still I truly believe mathematics/logic/ reasoning can solve anything, given enough time,resources, intelligence. If some new mathematics arrive it is and will always be the product of logic. By that I don't mean that to arrive at new mathematics you have to only use logic/reasoning/math I mean the fact that it is mathematics makes it logic. I guess it would make mathematics really a 'Universal language' that can be translated into physical phenomena.

Log in to reply

I agree with Tim that not all problems in the world or in life can be solved mathematically (most probably can't). I agree with Johnson that learning new math requires tons of creativity, but that that creativity likely extends beyond the scope of reason/math/logic. I do not even know how to begin setting up the math problem of the meaning of life. Even if there were a mathematical answer to the meaning of life, or if every possible question could be answered mathematically; would that make math the highest form of intelligence?

Log in to reply

What is the purpose of life?

Please solve that problem for me with mathematics.. right now.

Log in to reply

Exactly so they can be solved with mathematics. I'm sure there is none you can conceive of now right?

Log in to reply

I cannot conceive of any problem that couldn't be solved by mathematics. Despite me not be very proficient at math I am pretty sure based on my beliefs that everything as far as we know it can be solved by Math/logic/reasoning. By intelligence I suppose you're right about there being many forms of it. I guess to put a frame on it would make it ever more hard to grasp. Personally, I think discovering 'new mathematics' requires a whole load of creativity.

Log in to reply

Math seems to me like the highest form of intelligence as well. I think it is because I am decent at it and struggle a lot with it because I do a lot of it. I have never tried to write a symphony. I bet it takes a lot of intelligence.

Log in to reply

I think many people think math is the smartest form of intelligence because few people really good at it. I think this is not because not many people are smart but because very few people try hard at math. Even people who are really good at math try hard at it.

Log in to reply

In my opinion the ability to reason mathematically is a form of intelligence and an important one. I think there is much more to both math and intelligence than problem solving and pattern recognition. In the world, in logic, and in life, not all relationships worth recognizing express themselves as patterns. Not all things worth thinking about are problems that need to be solved, and even the ones that do often rarely lend themselves to mathematical formulation.

Log in to reply

@Johnson There are definitely problems that cannot be solved by mathematics. Sometimes, it's not all about numbers. Even if they were solvable, our understanding of mathematics is not

nearlyenough to solve it.Log in to reply