27 ms·
That's a rather careless reading. The most interesting point, and the one that is the basis for him questioning the report, is that the primes in the report wer
by Kliment 15y ago
That's a rather careless reading. The most interesting point, and the one that is the basis for him questioning the report, is that the primes in the report were supposedly taken from a book listing primes up to a particular number. However, given the number of digits in said number there is no way they would fit into a (paper) book or any practical size. Also, Sachs was unable to identify the book used when directly questioned about this. He does not deduce that there is no way someone came up with that on their own, but that it's likely they do understand basic math, just not in the contexts they were tested in.
- ars 15y agoI don't know if he lied or not, but an entire paper that basically boils down to "he lied" is not actually a very interesting point when you are expecting to hear about how the brain is able to calculate primes. > He does not deduce that there is no way someone came up with that on their own Sure he does - he keeps calling that idea "science fiction". I'm sure it's a very important paper for its field, but very lacking in conclusions, and therefor of interest only to those in its field.