In set theory, the only concern for "distinctness" is whether or not items have different names. Different names = Distinct.
Items can share a property (such as male/female or the value of a coin) and still be distinct items. Consider the following:
Set1 = {John, Joe, Mary}
We know John and Joe are "male" and "Mary" is female. Do we have three distinct "things"? Yes.
On the other hand, consider 3 people: Joe McDonald, Joe Harris, Jane Fonda. What is the set of all first names? It's {Joe, Jane}. There are only two distinct first names.
You have three different coins. They are distinct because each is a different coin and you gave each one a different name.
"Classical Mechanics is a well known field of Mathematics." Do you even listen to yourself...? – Najib Idrissi 19 hours ago
The user "Najib Idrissi" asks the author of the sentence Classical Mechanics is a well known field of Mathematics. to read that statement for themselves. Najib makes sure that the author will realize the scientific mistake in that sentence and, in short, "will come to their senses."
It's like your friend has told you something very oddly wrong, and you didn't expect him to say so. You tell him/her to listen to himself/herself, so that s/he will realize the mistake they've made. In this case, it seems very rudimentary to the mathematicians that "classical mechanics" are a physics' subject, and hardly related to math. So, "well known", as it means that "many are familiar with it being a part of mathematics" seems a very idiotic expression to them, as if the author didn't know what they were typing, or simply, talking about.
If you ask me, there is a bit of negative connotation in this sentence, but it wouldn't be considered as offensive. (As "offensive" is too strong for it)
In fact, the expression "listen to yourself" is commonly used in the area of philosophy when there's a speak of art of communicating between humans.
philosophy reference 1
philosophy reference 2
The third
And this is a nice example of a similar usage. (Though it contains the expression and not the exact question)
in Google books
Best Answer
In contexts such as OP's, X-wise means when considered specifically in the context of X. It's a construction commonly used to create "nonce" terms (one-off coinages whose precise meaning is specific to the context, but normally obvious to the reader/audience in that context).
Here are a couple of instances from Google Books for dinner-wise (just a noun I chose at random). Note that they're separated by over 150 years, showing that the construction has been around a long time with no significant change in how it can be used...
Perhaps unwisely, OP's cited context blurs the distinction between intelligence and knowledge. Almost certainly the quiz-setter is asking whether you think you're good at book learning. That's to say, are you good at absorbing information from books (rather than personal experience), and/or good at passing exams and succeeding in an academic context (as opposed to having practical skills, common sense, etc., being types of "intelligence" often claimed by "non-academics").
In OP's specific case, book-wise primarily restricts the context of "intelligence" to the ability to absorb information from (academic) textbooks. But it's easy to imagine a context where the restriction is significantly different...
...where in that context the speaker may well be referring to books as a source of entertainment (novels and other works of fiction), rather than "information" as such.
EDIT: I've just realised that some learners may find OP's specific example confusing because they might understand intelligent as meaning wise (having wisdom). But etymologically that word is unrelated to the suffix usage. From Your Dictionary...