Reverend Bayes:
No, I didn't. Would you settle for very similar to 1?

Not sure amout the Rev, but I wouldn't. 0.9999999 recurring (i.e. going on for ever) is indeed exactly the same as 1. If it were not it would introduce serious problems in mathematics. But it is not as much of a problem as it seems, because there is a distinction between the mathematical quantity 'one' and how you choose to represent it. All the statement is actually saying is that the mathematical quantity has multiple possible representations, which no-one should really baulk at, since they are quite comfortable with 1 and one. Of course, a mathematician by heart will start talking about what we mean by equality and epsilons of difference, but I think we can spare the world that one.

As for the relationship between pigeons, intelligence[whatever that is], memory and goals (which might be food or course credits depending on the species): it is an interesting subject but probably better discussed elsewhere. But as a taster the idea that intelligence can be better or worse assumes you can in principle set up an ordered sequence of intelligences, which in its turn assumes intelligence is single dimensional. What it isn't, I assert.