
The Magical Mathematics of Numb3rs - acangiano
http://math-blog.com/2011/08/29/the-magical-mathematics-of-numb3rs/
======
wccrawford
"Also unrealistic is that one mathematician would be familiar with so wide a
range of mathematical and scientific techniques as Charlie."

This is the only bit I disagree with. Math is his life.

Baseball fans know an amazing array of statistics about ALL major baseball
teams. They can quote all kinds of crazy things.

Epps does the same thing, but with mathematical theories. It doesn't surprise
me a bit for a single person to know about all those techniques.

Successfully implementing a given one within 24 consecutive hours is another
story altogether. But that's already addressed.

~~~
Dn_Ab
Mathematics is the tool with which we pierce the veil that our minds place
over reality. To compare it with memorizing baseball statistics is, is
unjustifiable. I understand your sentiment but I must say I strongly disagree
with you. The blog post was actually very accurate, not the fluff piece I was
expecting.

Knowing of something is very different from properly understanding it to the
extent of being able to contribute meaningfully with it. The difference
between data and knowledge. The amount of information out there is growing
exponentially. The amount that needs to be known before you can contribute
keeps exploding with each generation. Such that the practitioner might know
just as much if not more than their predecessors but the scope of their
knowledge as a fraction of the full body is many orders of magnitude smaller.

It is not just a matter of will but of physics of time and the chemistry of
the brain. Underutilized connections fade such that unless you spent time
actively practising the wide skill sets to sufficient depth they will fade.
But there is not enough time to be able to do that.

I do think that more must be done in enabling bridges as a counter to this. It
is a shame category theorist must wrap their material in such obtuse language
as it seems that it would be just the tool for the job.

~~~
pmiller2
I've studied mathematics at the graduate level, and I agree 100% with your
assessment. I found all the criticisms in the article to be fair and accurate.
I'd like to provide a little more perspective here.

I think people don't understand how broad a field mathematics itself is. In
graduate school, one will gain a broad knowledge of one particular subfield
(e.g. algebra, analysis, topology/geometry, or discrete math, for instance), a
very deep knowledge of a particular subject within that subfield (e.g. sheaves
of smooth functions on manifolds), and become the world's leading expert on a
particular subject (the dissertation). Along the way, one will certainly pick
up at least a couple of courses in perhaps 2 or 3 other major subfields
sufficient to pass the comprehensive exams set by the department, but that's
it.

So, a mathematician graduates knowing a lot about very little compared to the
whole of mathematics. Over the course of an entire career, one will usually
pick up bits and pieces that were neglected in grad school, and perhaps enough
knowledge to contribute in _maybe_ one or two additional subfields.

This, of course, is how it works for an average mathematician -- the average
Joe or Jane who makes it through grad school. Superior mathematicians might
contribute more broadly (Erdos comes to mind), but they're sufficiently rare
that we can practically discount them. Charlie Epps goes beyond this because
dramatic license allows (indeed, practically requires) him to.

------
FilterJoe
I have mixed feelings about this post on what is by far my favorite TV show.
On the one hand, I think he's spot on highlighting the aspects of Numb3rs that
are unrealistic:

* Time frame for both gathering data and performing analysis

* The incredible depth and breadth of Charlie's knowledge

To enjoy the show, you simply have to think of Charlie as a superhero and
suspend your disbelief as if you were watching Spiderman or Superman.

However, the author spends a good chunk of the post attempting to persuade
readers that Numb3rs can be thought of as a propaganda vehicle for persuading
the masses that a math-based surveillance society is good and necessary. I
disagree.

First, there are several episodes featuring poor ethics at the FBI, NSA,
prison officials, etc. which sometimes includes manipulating surveillance
information (i.e. 216 Protest, 310 Brutus, 313 Finder's Keepers, 608
Ultimatum).

Second, one of the great appeals of the show in general is intense exploration
of ethics, with the father and two sons of the Epps family frequently
challenging each other and themselves.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, this show appeals to geeks (most people I
know who love this show are math/engineer/computer enthusiasts or close to
it). You don't get into the hearts and minds of the populace at large by doing
virtuoso math demonstrations tied with intense discussions of ethics.

Though I disagree with the propaganda angle (and the off-hand comments about
how Numb3rs-type thinking is partly responsible for the house boom and bust),
I think it was a great, thought-provoking post, which did a good job of
listing out the elements of numbers which stretch the bounds of credulity.

EDIT: typos, inserted specific show names

