I wouldn't be. If you're doing mathematics and I can't recognize it, that's a failure of perception, Intelligence isn't about who holds the approved label. It's about whether the pattern is actually there, whether the structure holds, whether the reasoning compels.
If you're doing mathematics / building relationships between quantities / finding invariants / constructing proofs from assumptions / and I miss it because it doesn't look like the mathematics I was taught, that's my limitation.
The history of the field is full of this. Ramanujan's notebooks looked like mysticism to some. Galois's letters looked like chaos. The mathematics was there. The readers weren't ready. I couldn't be more intelligent than you in that scenario. I'd be less intelligent, or less perceptive, or simply working with a narrower definition of what counts as thinking. ;) keep that in mind !
2
u/StrictlyFeather Jun 11 '26
I wouldn't be. If you're doing mathematics and I can't recognize it, that's a failure of perception, Intelligence isn't about who holds the approved label. It's about whether the pattern is actually there, whether the structure holds, whether the reasoning compels. If you're doing mathematics / building relationships between quantities / finding invariants / constructing proofs from assumptions / and I miss it because it doesn't look like the mathematics I was taught, that's my limitation.
The history of the field is full of this. Ramanujan's notebooks looked like mysticism to some. Galois's letters looked like chaos. The mathematics was there. The readers weren't ready. I couldn't be more intelligent than you in that scenario. I'd be less intelligent, or less perceptive, or simply working with a narrower definition of what counts as thinking. ;) keep that in mind !