Mathematicians Become Hollywood Consultants

techstar25 writes "With the recent success of movies incorporating mathematics, Dr. Jonathan Farley, a professor of mathematics at the State University of New York at Buffalo who is currently doing research at Harvard, tapped into his professional knowledge and headed west to Hollywood, where he and Dr. Elizabeth Burns, founded Hollywood Math and Science Consulting to help television and movie producers portray accurate mathematics on screen. Their first client: the CBS drama Numb3rs. 'In many cases, they want me to elaborate on some of the math already in the script,' said Farley. 'I help add dialogue and fine tune the math already in the script. It's not just about fixing mathematical mistakes . . . It's also about helping them get the culture right.'"

Mathematics Out of the Closet

[geomon]

NPR covered this story [npr.org] as well. I found it interesting that the Simpsons had a writer with such an advanced degree in mathematics.

Re:Mathematics Out of the Closet

[gvc]

Fantastic picture zooming predates computers. Columbo [imdb.com] solved many a murder by zooming in on a crowd scene or a video to disover a tatoo, monogram, birthmark, etc.

Law and Order have simply digitized the technique. One season they were fond of zooming in on the name of the particular model of Ford driven by the suspect/victim/witness.

Re:...And while they're at it...

[His name cannot be s]

I'm tired of computers that can scan billions of fingerprints instantly,

Actually this irritates me so much.

The match on fingerprints is actually lighting fast (and doesn't have any graphical comparison crap), but the scanning in and identifing points can take even an experienced tech hours.

I really hate DNA match magic that CSI uses... not only does it set a false image into people's mind as to how easy it is, but jurors will often beleive that if no DNA evidence is entered, that gives them resonable doubt, regardless of the massive amount of evidence in front of them.

Hmmm, while we're at it, I'm sick of the shows where people just seem to be able to hack into stuff (NCIS--Very irritating), or where they just start spewing mumbo-fucking-jumbo. ("I hacked into the Router's backbone NAS Mainframe, where I adjusted their DSL lookup server to allow me to track the GPS Meta-quad jigaflops." ) --eh, NCIS is bad for that too.

Re:Now if someone

[whitearrow]

You don't see characters drinking Coke or Pepsi or Tropicana Orange Juice. You don't see them using Crest toothpaste or Pantene shampoo. They might use containers that IMPLY a product, but never the product itself (unless endorsement money has been paid). After all, why give a huge multi-billion dollar free advertisement when everyone else needs to pay for commercial time and product placements.

Actually, no, that's not the reason. If they use a specific brand they must get what's called "clearance" for it from the owner of the trademark if the brand is shown or used in dialogue. I have a relative who works in post-production, and on a movie he worked on, a specific brand of bubble gum was mentioned in the script (in a very non-offensive way)but still, at the last minute, they realized they didn't have clearance, and the actors had to be brought in to re-loop all the dialogue, at a cost of about $50,000. So if you don't have a deal in place, that's why TV shows and movies don't show specific brands -- they aren't afraid of the free advertising, but it can turn into an expensive nightmare, so it's just better to avoid it.

badastronomy.com & movies

[G4from128k]

Phil Plait is an astronomer/teacher who likes to debunk or comments on movies/media/etc. at BadAstronomy.com. I've seen this guy at a conference and he's very amusing.

The core problem with science/math in movies and TV shows is that reality is often too boring to make it on film. Writers/directors/studios feel the need to violate the laws of physics rather than violate the laws of entertainment. I can only hope that shows such as Numb3rs can reverse (or at least) minimize this tendency.

Re:Erm, What Movies ?

[geomon]

I think they are referring to "Good Will Hunting".

Re:Mathematics Out of the Closet

[swerk]

The zooming in and "enhance" stuff always gets me. No matter how interesting the story is, I get pulled out of it for several minutes every time that happens.

My (least?) favourite was after a bit of "zoom in on this" and "magnify that" they did a "pan around to this side". I wish I could remember what that was from; it ruined the whole show/movie/whatever for me. First, a "pan" would keep the camera stationary, he meant (and the effect was) a "dolly" or "truck" or some combination of the two. Second... NO! Can't do that! No crook would ever get away with anything, provided someone on the block had a camcorder running at the time, if such magic were possible.

The other one is bleeps and other noises on every keystroke, every selection, every page event, every blink of some huge piece of text. 'Cause good UI design involves enormous, blinking text.

Gotta love the sophisticated visual effects that any virus/trojan/etc creates, too. ...Sorry, one more. A mac will not shut down or crash to an orange/green "C:\" DOS prompt. Even Office Space is guilty of that nonsense (nevermind the ISA boards and other out-of-place hardware inside the evil printer...) But that movie I can forgive, since it got so much right culture-wise. :^)

Re:Mathematics Out of the Closet

[MarkCollette]

Enemy of the State had a scene where they panned around to see the other side of someone. It pained me greatly.

Re:I'll bet [objoke]

[trendyhendy]

That's one dumb waitress, because the integral is actually one third pi r cubed (plus a constant).

futurama is degree heavy also

[k2enemy]

there was actually a slashdot article [slashdot.org] about this too.

david x cohen - physics at harvard (b)
- computer science at berkeley (masters)

stewart burns - math at harvard (phd)

ken keeler - applied math at harvard (phd)

bill odenkirk - chem at chicago (phd)

jeff westbrook - computer science at princeton (phd)

Re:They do need help

[cens0r]

Actually if I remember correctly the FBI really did you statistics to predict where a bank robbery would occur and one of the locations they projected was correct.

Re:Killjoys

[Chirs]

Let's take a typical .45 bullet. A bit of googling gives 225 grains with a muzzle velocity of 960 feet/sec. This converts to about 31 pound feet/sec of momentum.

This is equivalent to a 186lb man travelling one foot every 6 seconds. Doesn't really sound like a whole lot, now does it?

Quite a few math movies

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

For a list of movies under discussion try this link [imdb.com].

That's my dream job! My claim to fame is that I did consult a tiny bit for one of those movies, but as it has a score of 5.6 I'm embarassed to admit what it was.

Re:computer consulant

[Anonymous Coward]

Jurassic Park had the most graphical unix system I have ever seen. This was in the early 90s.

It was still a real system; http://www.sgi.com/fun/freeware/3d_navigator.html [sgi.com]

Johnny Nnemonic had almost 3D holographic.

Johnny Mnemonic is based on a SF book that takes place in the future. Nothing strange there.

Hacker the movie. The worst portrayal of computers period.

Well... I agree. It is silly, but it got some good stuff. The books they mention in it is real classics so they got something right at least :)

Re:Mathematics Out of the Closet

[Anonymous Coward]

Triangulation is taking a bearing from three known points on a map with a directional antenna on a radio receiver and drawing lines from those points along those bearings. They form a small triangle where they cross.

I didn't see the episode, but your description is just wrong. If you take a bearing from three known positions, what are you doing with those bearings? Creating a triangle from those 3 positions you took a bearing of? That doesn't tell you anything.

Triangulation in order to find a radio source involves taking a bearing with a directional antenna tuned to the signal you're trying to find (which you don't know where it is) from 2 known positions. The point where the lines cross is where the source is (exactly, not within a small triangle). Those 3 points form the triangle.

I don't know if that's what they did on the show or not, but that's what triangulation to find a radio source is.

Re:Mathematics Out of the Closet

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a directional antenna if you can determine (through other means) exactly when the signal arrived, and compare when each listener gets the signal. From there you draw circles on the map, where they intersect is the target.

That's nice, dear, but that's not triangulation. That's trilateration [wikipedia.org].

Re:Mathematics Out of the Closet

[bmrh]

You're right - that's how triangulation works in theory, but in practice its not uncommon to use 3 or even 4 points of reference. The reason is that the angle that you calculate from your reference point to the unknown point is never exactly correct, and you probably don't know exactly where the reference points are either: you'll have thier position with a certain degree of acuracy - eg. +/-100m.

If you're doing this over any significant distance you may need to calculate in the difference between a 2D map coordinate and the 3D surface of the planet. If the reference points are at different altitudes, then it's even less acurate.

So if you do as the previous writer said, and use 3 reference points, then you end up with a small triangle where their bearings cross. The target is then in that triangle (or close to it) and the size of the triangle tells you how much confidence to have in the results - a larger triangle means that your reference points and bearings are less acurate.

Incidentally, triagulation can be used this way for navigation using line of site signals such as light houses or trig stations too.

Wow. Maybe I spent too much time in the boy scouts. ;-)

Re:Mathematics Out of the Closet

[Dun Malg]

I didn't see the episode, but your description is just wrong. If you take a bearing from three known positions, what are you doing with those bearings? Creating a triangle from those 3 positions you took a bearing of? That doesn't tell you anything.

It's not wrong, you just misunderstood me.

Triangulation in order to find a radio source involves taking a bearing with a directional antenna tuned to the signal you're trying to find (which you don't know where it is) from 2 known positions. The point where the lines cross is where the source is (exactly, not within a small triangle).

I was a signal intelligence analyst in the army. The place where those two lines cross is NEVER exactly where those two lines cross. That's why you need to do a third "cut" from a third position. In a perfect universe, that third line would intersect exactly where the other two cross, giving you a perfect fix. In reality, that third line will be somewhere to one side or the other of the intersection of the first two.The three lines form a (hopefully) tiny triangle. Your fix is within this triangle. This is probably where you misunderstood wme. This small triangle is not where the process of triangulation gets its name. You are correct in that basic triangulation involves the signal bearing from two know points forming a triangle with the target, but a military man (as the character is purported to be*) with any training in radio direction finding will always take a minimum of three DF shots (four or five is better, six is usually overkill) before declaring a positive fix on a stationary target.

* The character is supposedly former "Republican Guard", but his back story has him torturing dissidents-- the sole province of the Mukhabarrat. This is like confusing the US Army with the FBI-- it's just fucking stupid. THe writers for the show are the worst kind of stupid: idiots that think they know what they're talking about and are so sure of themselves they never check their "facts".

Culture?!? How naive

[John Whorfin]

A few years ago, I got to be an extra as a soldier on a movie. As a US Army Reservist, I was rather surprised at the blatant disregard for Army "culture" -- like the wear of the uniform.

(For current/former military types: "Hey, Hollywood! You work in a gas station? Fix your damn, cover!" -- you know what I mean.)

I pointed these out to the "technical consultant" (also a Reservist) and was told, "don't push it, no one cares."

Culture, uh-huh.

That aside I was very impressed at Hollywood's ability to duplicate the entire suite of field gear in foam. Foam rifles, foam body armor, foam (well plastic) helmets, foam in the rucksacks. Much ligher than the real deal :).

Good, maybe they'll remake _Contact_

[Dammital]

... which completely omitted the big payoff idea from Sagan's book. Read Contact if you haven't, and forget that silly movie.