MovieChat Forums > X+Y (2015) Discussion > Showed none of the beauty of math

Showed none of the beauty of math

posted 9 years ago by melinda2001
26 replies | jump to latest

We almost only see and hear parts of problems. Some problems or diagrams shown on chalkboards are interesting, and some of them can be shown to have elegant answers that everyone can understand. Showing more full answers would have let us into his world to see what he finds so attractive about it. Instead it's mostly left as a mystery, suggesting that these people are different and their world has little to do with ours. Except of course when they "get better" and begin to feel some of the same emotions of our world. It showed a little bit about what these people are like, but ultimately I think that it also did some subtle disservices, both to them and to the beautiful subject of math.

[–] chandeleur 9 years ago

That's a bummer. I'm about to start studying calculus for an engineering degree, and was hoping to find some motivation and get pumped after watching this film. I guess not?

▇ ▆ ▅ ▃ ▂ ▁ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ewVfsXIQNA ▁ ▂ ▃ ▅ ▆ ▇

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Not really, but calculus is pretty exciting in it's own right. Adding an infinite number of infinitely thin slices to get and exact, finite result is a pretty beautiful idea.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

BTW, I just now watched La habitación de Fermat (2007) which is not a good movie or inspirational but it contained 5 or 6 good math puzzles that were fully explained.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Fermat's Room was not just good, it was great, WAY better than this.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Flakito 9 years ago

Personally, I found the solution Nathan finds at the blackboard in Taiwan pretty neat, elegant, quick and appealing to different themes in math. And more broadly, I thought it was a very powerful scene.

But yeah, the whole point of the movie (I found) is to say that you shouldn't feel too much pressure to succeed, there are always valuable things in life besides what's right in front of your eyes. No ?

[–] fjch1997 9 years ago

In my opinion, if the mathematic problems are shown in details, people without math profession might not see the beauty in it and can be very well confused and bored.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Showing even one full solution would have helped a lot. Lots of good problems are easily understandable by everyone, so that's no excuse. One problem I thought I spotted on a blackboard was called the "Mutilated chessboard problem" (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilated_chessboard_problem.) That one is quite elegant, difficult, and with a beautiful solution that anyone can understand.

[–] csj2332 9 years ago

How about the scene where Nathan solves the problem on the blackboard in the Chinese classroom?

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Got a timestamp for that scene? My recollection is that he only showed fragments of his solution but could be mistaken.

[–] Whatsifsowhatsit 9 years ago

It's about 1 hour and a little under 1 minute in. The whole thing is shown, it's just that it's not fully written out as a formal proof, as far as I can tell. I can only assume the context was that an informal answer was sufficient (or at least I'll willingly suspend my disbelief to that point).

---
My vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13037287

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Thanks for the timestamp. You are correct that he gives a complete proof. I had forgotten that one. I've now edited my OP to reflect that.

Although his proof is correct, I don't think it's the best one. I prefer an inductive proof:
1: If every pattern of N cards must terminate, then so must every pattern of N+1 cards. That's because you'll eventually need to turn over the new leftmost card and will never be able to turn it back again. Then the rightmost N cards will terminate as assumed.
2: The case of N=1 terminates after the first move.
Therefore all N must terminate.

BTW, the link you give in your signature will only work for you (it takes me to my list) because of the "mymovies" portion. You want http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5313477/ratings

[–] Whatsifsowhatsit 9 years ago

I prefer a proof like that too, I think :) he ended up with a bit of an informal conclusion, it seemed to me. That said, can you start with N=1, given the way the rules are formulated? Perhaps N=2 is the starting point. I suppose it doesn't matter, though. If N is an odd number, however, this gets to the point where you have to turn over the right-most card at some point no matter how you start. Perhaps the rules should have said the card to the right of the one you're turning over, if any, would also be turned over.

Thanks for that hint about my signature link! How silly of me. Hopefully it's fixed now.

---
My vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5313477/ratings

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Spoken like a true math geek and a future master programmer!

[–] Whatsifsowhatsit 9 years ago

I hope so! :D

---
My vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5313477/ratings

[–] movieghoul 9 years ago

I like his proof; however, while the crux of it was defining each scenario as a binary number, he did not actually prove that these numbers must sequentially decrease. However, that is easily proved by induction (the first step must decrease, and for asny step N , step N+1 must also decrease. HOwever, that explanation would have lost most of the audience so I think it's fine as is. May not be the most elegant proof, but probably the proof most comprehensib le to a non-math audience.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

To a non-math audience that understands binary notation, but sure, the proof works.

[–] legendlength 9 years ago

I agree there are plenty of ways to show elegant and still mind blowing results in maths.

I've only seen the preview for this film but to me it seemed to be all sizzle and no steak. Lots of flashy equations on blackboards and ego boosting but no real insight into the things mathematicians hold most dear.

[–] mtzgrz 9 years ago

The movie is not about math, and I find it silly that you need to be shown some interesting or neat math problem in order to understand how someone could be passionate about something.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

You misunderstand. I don't need to see a neat math problem. It is because I already am passionate about math that I thought it was sad because it was a missed opportunity to bring the audience along and give everyone an idea of what we find so beautiful about it.

[–] mplee23 7 years ago

Right, and Rocky wasn't about boxing but they sure showed a lot of boxing in that movie. The fact is that screenwriters and creative types in general do not understand math and make no effort to understand it. Math can be every bit as creative and beautiful as a sonnet, or piece of music or a painting. That doesn't mean that filmmakers have to include math in their film but can you imagine any other film where there is so little of the nominal subject matter?

[–] SpitsworthDangerfield 9 years ago

It's not a movie about Maths.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

I know that, but compare it to say A Beautiful Mind (2001) which wasn't about math either but did take the trouble to explain what the math was about and give a hint of the solution approaches involved. This small thing made it a much better movie IMO.

[–] thulk01 9 years ago

So how much math is actually in this movie? Basically none? That is the primary reason I was interested in watching this. I don't necessarily need to see people sitting there explaining every detail but I would like to at least see/hear some discussion about whatever problems they are working on. Would you recommend this?

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Not if your interest is more about the math than the personalities. Sometimes they will read the entire description of a problem (often graph theory), but I don't think even a single answer was ever described. Sometimes they wouldn't even finish reading the entire problem.

Searching for better movies in this way I'm finding that there appear to be extremely few good examples. La habitación de Fermat (2007) is a poor movie but it's the best one that I know of that shows both interesting puzzles and their solutions. There are some very good movies that touch on this stuff but don't go deeply into the math. They include Good Will Hunting (1997), A Beautiful Mind (2001), and perhaps Enigma (2001). And then there are a couple of really good documentaries including Trillion Dollar Bet (2000) and http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/fermats-last-theorem/.

[–] foothill_warrior 7 years ago

Not sure if it was mentioned yet - but also check out "The Man Who Knew Infinity". Although it is largely about racism in England in the early 1900's, they dumb-down a bit of what Ramanujan did but still leave in plenty of discussions on complex math issues. I saw both of these within a few days of each other and both were good.

"...I reaally like bananas... I know it ain't profound or nuthin..." - FarSide Gorilla

[–] melinda2001 7 years ago

On your suggestion, I watched it just now. I always like Jeremy Irons, and the production values were high. A quick search suggests the story was very accurate. I disagree however that it included any discussion of complex mathematics. The only clear explanation I recall was a description of what a partition is.