The one question IQ test. If answered right the person/s receive an IQ of 1,000,000,000

A: It wouldn't be a person ;)

God I guess.

>Q. Can a person have a 1,000,000,000 IQ?

Could upset your overall bandwidth, yo!
Not to mention (ironically, through mentioning it) emotional, social, and cultural (etc) quotients...
Also consciousness, sentience, and sapience (etc) arrays and/or disarrays could become arrayed and/or disarrayed.
Once you realise that you don't really exist, per se, things can get kinda weird.
Conversely, once you realise that you do exist, per se, things can get kinda weird.

Apparently some humans have IQ's inbetween 100-300 ATM. Considering A.I. and/or A.G.I and then whichever kind of being(s) A.I. and/or A.G.I. produce etc...
Then considering groups, societies, and civilisations etc...
Then planetary consciousnesses, and planetary sized consciousnesses etc...
Then multiplanetary, galactic, and intergalactic etc...
Then etc etc...
...Sort of.

"Everybody is a genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid." comes to mind.

Bottlenecking (and/or similar concepts) could eventuate.

Is there in existence negative (and/or minus) IQ's?

How does one transcend and/or ascend and/or transascend the () linear scale?

A: -1/12

Not with our current population. IQ follows a normal distribution with a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100, so the maximum possible IQ is around 195 (using living population, not all living and dead humans). IQ tests, of course, are unable to perfectly follow the distribution they're supposed to, so people can be mistakenly scored with IQs above this limit.
In order to have an IQ of one million, a population of around 10^(10^9) would be required.

compsci fag from /g/ here can i get a quick rundown of this meme?

If i gave you an infinite amount of explanation you would come out with -1/12 the knowledge than when i began explaining

...

brainlet detected
it should be
If I gave you an increasing amount of explanations every time you didn't understand by an increment of 1 you would come out with -1/12 the knowledge than when I began explaining.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function
The Riemann zeta function, which equals [math]\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-x}[/math] for all x greater than one can be analytically continued to (extended with complex analysis to different areas) and defined for all of the complex plane except z=1, so that Zeta(-1) = -1/12.

How does that make it impossible? It would just mean, accounting for overall population and population growth, once in how many years such a genius could occur. Someone with 1,000,000 IQ would probably come once every 100 million years or so.

A person probably could be given that number as their IQ if they were tested, but it wouldn't mean a lot. Its so outside the normal variation its just a ridiculous outlier

It's not technically impossible, but might as well be. No one alive currently could have 1000000 IQ. You can calculate it, and if you find a group of 10^(10^9) people (the total atoms in the observable universe are around 10^80 for comparison), yes, you can will have someone with that IQ.

Jesus fucking Christ, take some ritalin and learn about sentence structure. You're just throwing whatever idea comes to mind out there without a filter or anything linking ideas together.

No. Even if you assume IQ is truly normally distributed, the probability of that event occurring is 0.

>Q. Can a person have a 1,000,000,000 IQ?

We would have to create entirely new forms of intelligence measurement...

our current scores top out at about 260 or so, after that the measurement loses resolution and becomes meaningless.

That being said, I don't believe that it is possible for an actual human brain to have that kind of intellectual capacity, I'm pretty sure it would violate some laws of physics, or at the very least, they could no longer be technically classified as "Human"

...

Well this is definitely an interesting question. The problem is that any calculation of the necessary sample size relies on the [math]Erfc[/math] function, and even with 10 000 decimal points, Mathematica can't figure out the sample for an IQ of 10k.

Here's what I do know. In order for Planet Earth to have a probability of 1 or greater that someone has an IQ of 1 000, using a standard deviation of 15, there would have to be [math]8.08033 * 10^{783}[/math] people on Earth.

furthermore, if you want to visualize this another way, using the US's average male height and standard deviation, an IQ of 1000 would be equivalent to being 20' 5.7" tall.

How do you
>have a probability of 1 or greater ?
"1" is a dead certainty.

The distribution of IQ is normalized to have mean 100 and standard deviation 15.

For high IQs to be accurately defined, the bell curve would need to be saturated all the way up to the high IQ. Without other examples to compare to, you don't know how high on the scale to label someone.

If you watch Rick and Morty your IQ may go further than that

if dubs i get 1m^2 IQ

Wrong. Once you filter an idea, or link multiple ideas, they then become different ideas. You are all advantaged by your structure(s), yet you are all also disadvantaged by your structure(s).

Theoretically.

See what I did there?

Sorry, I meant .5. Asshole

Wolfram Alpha said around 10^(10^9)

if an IQ that high is attainable and can be proven by an answer to this question, then the answer isn't going to be a short answer. It's going to an incredibly complex and elaborate answer that entails concepts that trump the average human intelligence by a metric fucktonne.

The answer if yes is yes.
If the question is accurate, then a person can have that IQ anyway. That said, I didn't attain that IQ, so I can only assume I didn't answer it right or that no answer exists. Also, if the average IQ is 100, then they would have 1,000,000,100 IQ after solving it, and that doesn't prove 1,000,000,000 IQ exists either.

So the answer is no, and the question is inaccurate.

there arent that many free objects in the abservable universe right

so you'd need to discover enough of the universe just 2 justify that number

what's the IQ if the answer is wrong?

Yes, if they answer correctly