Numbers

TV, Movies, Sports...you can find it all in here.

Numbers

Postby Technomancer » Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:31 am

I'm surprised to see there isn't any thread for this show. Does anyone else watch it here?
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.

Neil Postman
(The End of Education)

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge

Isaac Aasimov
User avatar
Technomancer
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
Location: Tralfamadore

Postby shooraijin » Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:13 am

I'd seen a piece of it but my television antenna is determined to only let me get a couple channels and I'd just tuned it for ABC to I can get Lost on Wednesdays. ;) (No, I don't have/want cable a/t/m.)

What I saw of it seemed to be a clever concept, but the devil is probably in the details -- for example, I can't watch "hacker" shows or movies because their depictions of computers and networks are just stupidly inaccurate ("The Net" ... hrrraghtphthph). I do know there's at least one famous academic consultant on the show, but how do they handle the math? Is it hokey or at least semi-plausible? And does it flow naturally from the plot, or merely act as a sight gimmick?
"you're a doctor.... and 27 years.... so...doctor + 27 years = HATORI SOHMA" - RoyalWing, when I was 27
"Al hail the forum editting Shooby! His vibes are law!" - Osaka-chan

I could still be champ, but I'd feel bad taking it away from one of the younger guys. - George Foreman
User avatar
shooraijin
 
Posts: 9927
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:00 pm
Location: Southern California

Postby agasfas » Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:59 am

I saw the first episode long long time ago. From what I saw, it wasn't too bad, but I think it kind of goes off into intangible ideas or concepts.

Like using a water sprinkler and it's splash ratio to help solve crimes...
"A merry heart doeth good like a medicine.." Prov 17:22

The word 'impossible' isn't in my dictionary... but I don't really have a dictionary you know? - Eikichi Onizuka.
Sorry, but I stop being a teacher at 5 o'clock. - Eikichi Onizuka.
User avatar
agasfas
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:27 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Technomancer » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:21 am

The mathematical ideas themselves are actually reasonably sound, the problem is in their application. In the show unfortunately, they make the problems sound a lot easier than they actually are. In many cases, for example, they're attemping to perform some statistical prediction based on a very limited set of data, or working from some prior distributions that they simply would not have access to. As a drama it's not bad, and the writers do have some interesting ideas about mathematics and analogies to more concrete ideas; from that point of view it's a reasonably good show. That said, the apparent ease with which they use these methods to solve crimes is mostly BS. Unfortunately, really good mystery shows tend to be few and far between on television.

Like using a water sprinkler and it's splash ratio to help solve crimes...


As an idea it's not really that far fetched. You can use what you know about the splash pattern and the dynamics of the water droplets to solve the inverse problem of locating the sprinkler. However, that depends on having those models available; human behaviour on the other hand is far more complicated and is generally much less well defined. As an analogy to what was being attempted though, it was a pretty good one and explained the thrust of their solution.
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.

Neil Postman
(The End of Education)

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge

Isaac Aasimov
User avatar
Technomancer
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
Location: Tralfamadore

Postby mitsuki lover » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:23 pm

I don't really watch broadcast tv that much any more.
User avatar
mitsuki lover
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:00 pm

Postby TurkishMonky » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:43 pm

i religiously watch the show every friday. the best bart about is a nerd in the main role!!!!!!

But i do agree with technomancer that the ideas are very overlysimplified and solve things out of no data.
User avatar
TurkishMonky
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:07 am


Return to General Entertainment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 248 guests