"Why Doesn't Maths Add Up":- Documentary

[sjastro]

SBS 1 7.30pm Tuesday 8th Feb.

We have to admit, we don't have the best head for numbers.

Nor, as it turns out, does comedian Alan Davies.

In a bid to explain the power and wonder of maths to a non-mathematician, Professor Marcus du Sautoy is taking the much-loved comedian on a mathematical road trip.

Mathematics is the one of the most powerful disciplines in history. It has not only helped to build the modern world, but it also continuously offers an insight into how the universe works. Why then, do so many people hate it?

Marcus is one of the UK's leading scientists. As a revered mathematician, he lectures at Oxford University and has written countless mathematical papers.

Alan, meanwhile, scraped a C grade in his Maths O Level.

Marcus faces a daunting challenge. He has two weeks to make Alan fall in love with the subject and help him see the world like a mathematician.

Their journey begins at Alan's old school, where Alan shows Marcus what little he can remember of his mathematical education. From there, Alan is introduced to some key concepts of maths. Despite making good progress, he's convinced he doesn't have a brain for numbers, so Marcus and Alan have their brains scanned to see whether there is any difference in their maths hardware.

Together, Marcus and Alan explore some of the fundamental principles of maths and try to understand the greatest maths problems of the 21st century.

[CraigS]

So are we taking bets as to whether Alan 'falls in love' with mathematics ?

.. Interesting … is aptitude in maths prewired, or is it a leaned skill ?

.. or is this doco just for a laugh ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So are we taking bets as to whether Alan 'falls in love' with mathematics ?

.. Interesting … is aptitude in maths prewired, or is it a leaned skill ?

.. or is this doco just for a laugh ?

Cheers

I'd say elementary maths can be a learned skill.
Higher maths is prewired.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

I guess 'aptitude' in anything is prewired .. (I probably used the wrong word).



Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

I think it would be a good watch, if anything; Entertaining

[avandonk]

As someone who is better at mathematics than football. It would be like trying to explain to me how a closed finite set of rules and time limit that governs grown men to chase a spheroid made of dead bits of animals over a limited grass field to supposedly enthrall the masses is beyond my comprehension!

Bert

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by avandonk

As someone who is better at mathematics than football. It would be like trying to explain to me how a closed finite set of rules and time limit that governs grown men to chase a spheroid made of dead bits of animals over a limited grass field to supposedly enthrall the masses is beyond my comprehension!

Bert

Sorry Bert - it's already been done! It was called Nerds FC. There was a great quote in it, something along the lines of "I understand the mathematics of my foot striking the ball and the trajectory of the ball into the net, but my body just doesn't seem to be able to do it".

Cheers -

[leon]

I'm with you on that one Bert, football, well what do you say, the words have escaped me.

Leon

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Looking forward to this!
Invariably doccos dumb things down or get something wrong, so instead of my yelling at the telly over something-or-other, it can be Carron's turn.
She's got an PHd in Pure Math's (or something clever).

[avandonk]

I would imagine that to simplify the current problems in a coherent theory is that they would try really pathetic understandable analogies.

If the great unwashed masses get an inkling of the realities of the problems then it is a good thing.

I will watch and learn hopefully.

Hope being the operative word.

Bert

[CraigS]

Here we go …. for anyone interested in exploring the relationship between mathematics and nature …. try this Youtube, Nature by Numbers (3:44 mins).

I recommend turning up the screen resolution to 720p, as well.

A brilliant production, this one (in my view).

Looking forward to tonight's program ..

Cheers

[avandonk]

Why the Golden Rectangle is pleasing to the Human eye is because it is the rectangular shape that just covers the fovea. Or the best bit of your eyes receptors. The idiocy it is magical is just that. idiocy!


Bert

[CraigS]

Hi Bert;

Why should something which is shaped similarly to the fovea be pleasing to the human eye ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

You really show your youthful ignorance here Craig.

bert

[CraigS]

Steven: Apologies for the following divergence .. I'm hooked (again) ..

Well .. I've looked around for an answer to my questions on this. I assure all, that my question was a genuine one … and it was meant to have been posed with the utmost respect to Bert, also .. apologies if it didn't come across that way there, Bert.

Whilst I understand that the fovea is the most sensitive part of the retina, and is responsible for sharp central vision, it is not necessarily obvious to me, that an object of the same shape should be "pleasing", just because of this.

I feel there's more to this than just the optical properties of the eye. So …

The Golden rectangle has been known since antiquity as one having a pleasing shape, and is frequently found in art and architecture as a rectangular shape that seems 'right' to the eye. It is mentioned in Euclid's Elements and was known to artists and philosophers such as Leonardo da Vinci.

There are other numerous quotes around supporting this view, also.

Whilst I'd probably be crazy to challenge 'the masters' on this, it is clear that there's a LOT of subjectivity and brain processing involved here. To me, there are lots of 'pleasing' shapes, and a rectangle is not exactly high my own personal list.

Then I read up on "Gestalt Psychology" and the 'Gestalt effect' ...

The Gestalt effect is the form-generating capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves.

… well, this just isn't a straight-forward issue. Lots to learn here. Maybe worthwhile keeping this in mind whilst watching the doco tonight, also.

Apologies to all for diverting the thread .. (just for this post .. unless anyone is interested in taking it further).

Cheers & Rgds

[sjastro]

Whilst I'd probably be crazy to challenge 'the masters' on this, it is clear that there's a LOT of subjectivity and brain processing involved here. To me, there are lots of 'pleasing' shapes, and a rectangle is not exactly high my own personal list.

I'm partial to the Tractricoid, or a tractrix generated pseudosphere.

Regards

Steven

[M54 (Molly)]

Starting in three minutes!!!

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I'm partial to the Tractricoid, or a tractrix generated pseudosphere.

Regards

Steven

Nothing better than t_i_t_s. EH.

Bert

[UniPol]

This is good stuff

[CraigS]

Well .. overall, I found the doco to be a little superficial .. but what could one expect from a one-hour program, I suppose. 'Twould be great if they could've teased it out to say, a six part series !

I'm not all that convinced by the 'brain activation' scanning technique to determine the 'centres' activated within the brain. I know we hear lots about this in many of these documentaries, but I'm always left wondering … just exactly what are we really looking at when we see these fuzzy, coloured pictures (?) We seem to read lots into such scans, but are we looking at the cause centre culminating from undertaking particular functions, (like mathematical reasoning), or the effect ? (Ie: the aggregation point resulting from having undertaken these functions) ?

I read a book once about the human brain and the author was a brain surgeon. He traced the history of the brain in medical science, and came to the concept of thought perhaps being distributed throughout the body .. not just a product of it being concentrated in the brain.

Anyway, I'd like to see more material about maths coming into mainstream media. The fractal craze and maybe chaos theory, were the last major exposures of it all, that I can remember.

Time to do it again ! Well overdue !

Cheers & thanks to all for this thread - very interesting!