16 replies to this topic

[Aunty Mib]

I got a "G" in third year biostatistics. Granted the class average was "F-" but I'm far from a math expert.

The explanations sound right.

[Split Ends]

I can enjoy Numb3rs because I can't do math. They could tell me anything vaguely mathematical and I would nod my head compliantly. My English degree was happy to take math classes called, "Math in Social Sciences," a/k/a, math for people who can't do math.

So this all works for me. TV = fiction. Fictional TV math = same as real math. All = happy me.

[Moo Marie]

I'm a mathematician. And the pseudo-math on Numb3rs doesn't bother me at all. It's just a flexible in this fictitious setting as everything else is in TV land. How many years have people been whining about the laws of physics in the Star Trek universe? And just about every other sci-fi show ever to land on television? I just see it as one more plot point that touches on the real stuff, but doesn't have to BE the real stuff. Do you think crime scene investigators' jobs are anything like CSI?

What I LIKE about the math on this show is that it shows real world applications for mathematics that are usually way beyond the education level of most of the audience in mathematics. That it shows it being useful for something other than itself or scientific research. That it shows mathematicians as real people with real problems. Charlie is highly unusual, yes, but Amita isn't so different from the man on the street. And that poor high school math teacher who gets asked for the 1000th time, "But when will I ever use math in my life?" can always assign watching just one episode....

It's about time mathematicians got some respect.

[ceindreadh]

It's about time mathematicians got some respect.

Yay for Mathematicians!
(There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that know Binary and those that don't)

[captain sam]

And the pseudo-math on Numb3rs doesn't bother me at all. It's just a flexible in this fictitious setting as everything else is in TV land.

I agree wholeheartedly that by showing that math has practical (and really cool) applications, the show promotes math's "image" and, for lack of a better term, makes it sexier.

The issue for me is, at what level does the show have a responsibility to accurately portray mathematics to its viewers and to what extent can they "stretch" the math in the name of plot or artistic license? Because the show purports to deal with higher-level math to which the average viewer has supposedly never been exposed and likely won't have to use in a life-or-death situation, certain stretches are fine and in fact can be beneficial in arousing curiosity in viewers. It's if they make a very basic mistake (i.e. a former physics major claims on CSI that you're safe in a car during a lighting storm because of the rubber tires--oy) that I get bothered.

However, I also think that getting the technobabble correct despite it going over the majority of viewers' heads can be beneficial. While some viewers might not know that sound doesn't travel in space, when a show like Firefly or BSG makes a conscious effort to acknowledge this fact without hanging a lantern on it, it adds an element of realism to the show for very involved fans. And for fans who later go out and look up the terms they heard, if they discover that something Charlie said was wrong or misleading, it might diminish their opinion of the show or the character.

[Mathra]

However, I also think that getting the technobabble correct despite it going over the majority of viewers' heads can be beneficial.

Exactly. Remember that the Star Trek universe represented, for the most part, an impossible future, not a purported reality like on this show. (And the technobabble was overtly comically fictitious.) When Charlie starts claiming that "Riemann's hypothesis" can break every code in the banking industry, I'd really prefer that he just "reconfooble the energymotron," or whatever, because at least he wouldn't be jarringly wrong, and it'd still be fiction.

It's about time mathematicians got some respect.

I understand and appreciate your sentiment; however, I don't get any extra admiration on account of a show whose arguably most hate-able character is the mathematician, thanks to his personality defects, boundary issues, and lack of touch with common sense. (For example, nobody'd ever get away with the way he used to bark at his graduate student on this show, back when she was "just" his graduate student.)

On the other hand, if the show actually taught something accessible, instead of talked about math with a lot of unnecessary adverbs, there might actually be a real change in respect for mathematicians.

The square root of 5 is eleventeen. Discuss.

And here I was thinking it was eleventy-seven -- Glaaaaaaaaaark!

[Glastonian]

a show whose arguably most hate-able character is the mathematician

I'm not in any way math-literate, but I was married to a mathematician for 15 years, and threw a lot of dinner parties for MathEx's math-y friends. Let me tell you, the character of Charlie is spot on. Discussion of math produced in MathEx and his pals a kind of religious ecstasy, and even when they could see that the eyes of non-mathematicians in the party were beginning to glaze over, they absolutely could not stop.

Even the clothing......MathEx dressed like an unmade bed, and had long curly hair and was usually unshaven. He was not, however, in any way hot. Unfortunately, in his case the effect was more Hair Bear Bunch than sex-on-legs Charlie.

Veering slightly back on topic; I have no idea if the math being fed to me by Numb3rs is 100% correct. Since it is a TV show and it's primary function is to entertain, I would expect that it is not. However, Charlie & co HAVE made this math-phobe want to pick up a text-book and find out.

[keckler]

I'm not in any way math-literate, but I was married to a mathematician for 15 years, and threw a lot of dinner parties for MathEx's math-y friends. Let me tell you, the character of Charlie is spot on. Discussion of math produced in MathEx and his pals a kind of religious ecstasy, and even when they could see that the eyes of non-mathematicians in the party were beginning to glaze over, they absolutely could not stop.

We've definitely had very different experiences because across two different university math departments, Mathra (my husband and a career mathematician) has had friends and colleagues that in no way resemble Charlie. Sure, they talk about math a lot, but they aren't socially awkward nor do they grab at people's food and they dress like professors, not students.

Edited by keckler, Oct 3, 2007 @ 11:34 AM.

[Moo Marie]

FWIW, the university I attended seemed to be somewhere in the middle. While a large number or the math professors seemed to have normal levels of social skills, others definitely did not. I think we're just looking at stereotypes here and if you look very long or hard, you'll see the type of people the character is based on. And remember, Amita is the social skills balance for Charlie. Charlie, however has the added challenge of being a child prodigy and therefore he had completely different social experiences as a child (outside of his family at least) than most people you'll encounter. I think that's an explanation for at least some of the lack of skills.

Oh, and the secretaries in our math department ended up putting up a board with the profs names and snapshots on the wall because they got tired of students coming in looking for their prof's office and not knowing his name. "A he? What does he look like?" "He's tall and has a beard." "Well, that eliminates one man...."

[Aunty Mib]

What bugs me is that Charlie is an expert on so many different types of math: Game Theory, Numbers Theory, Data Mining, Probability and now Cognitive Emergence Theory.

[CanStato]

What bugs me is that Charlie is an expert on so many different types of math: Game Theory, Numbers Theory, Data Mining, Probability and now Cognitive Emergence Theory.

TPTB explained that once: It's because It's A Television Show.

DK once gave the same explanation (more or less) to some CalTech students who told him he dressed too well to be a math professor.

[keckler]

TPTB explained that once: It's because It's A Television Show.

Well, that's a given but it doesn't mean we should let up on the nitpickery.

[Mrs. Whatsit]

I'm not savvy enough with the math to be thoroughly nitpicky, but I can tell when science in general is being given the dusting treatment, and this show does it regularly. And seeing as how I get ornery enough with any mispronunciation of anything related to the brain/neuroscience/psychology, I can empathize with the math professors here. I mean, really...how much does a consultant cost for heaven's sake?

[Glastonian]

I have no math brain either. During alegebra I was generally the one sent to sit at the back of the class with the safety scissors and the glitter. Still, even I can spot a howler!!

I got the rock in the fish-tank analogy, but the whole killer in the bath tub thingy?! Oh come on! Surely this would only have worked if the killer had been completely submerged? So, he was wearing scuba gear? Didya factor that possibility in Charlie? And how can you work out someone's height or body shape from the water displaced? Wouldn't say, tiddly cuddly Charlie take up the same space underwater as ten feet tall Agent Anorexic Warner?

I used to watch this show and feel smart, like I was learning something. Now I'm rolling my eyeballs and hurling M&Ms at the screen. Clunky math, coupled with the new unwatchable Charlievision is turning the unique heart of this show into a joke, and it's fast becoming just another police procedural with car chases and too many boring romances.

[jophan]

Oh, they have plenty of consultants. But by the time the writers have figured out what the consultants are saying, then take it down another level to try and explain it quickly, it gets kind of distorted. Sort of like the medicine on House, or the DNA testing on the CSIs.

[shaolingrrl]

I'm just going to exercise patience (since my patience is flabby, out of shape, and can use all the exercise it can get). True, the new Charlie-vision is a little disconcerting when his voice doesn't match his lips, and the math in the first episode was a little thin (though I quite liked the set deployment stuff) and the math in the second episode was just not up to snuff, but that's only two episodes, and there is much mathy goodness to be had in inelastic collisions.

I just had a weird thought. The gumball analogy was very pretty but kinda sucked as an analogy for refraction, really. (And please don't call refraction a force, Charlie. There. I feel better now.) I know TPTB had to swap Velocity and Hollywood Homicide. I wonder about the lead-time on the visuals. Just thinking about it, it seems like the gumballs would have been more apropos as an analogy concerning the reconstruction of a collision. I wonder if they had to repurpose the visuals when the episodes got switched around. It'll be interesting to see what Charlie-visions we get tonight.