Talk:Numbers (TV series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sources

I (Ed Pegg Jr) am one of the primary consultants for the show. I'd like to make some suggestions.

One: we use Lady Shelley's "Running the Numb3rs" notes frequently while doing script reviews, so citing that seems very appropriate.
Two: the "consultant" link [1] is inappropriate. Better would be [2] an article about Cheryl Heuton and her main advisors picking up the NSB Public Service Award. Pictures of Cheryl, the advisors, and the award are there.
Three: Mentioning the National Science Board award would be appropriate.
Four: Stephen Wolfram is another scientist that was mentioned (Ep 203- Bettor or worse). I wrote up explanations of the math used in the background: [3].
Five: In addition to Wolfram Research, Gary Lorden and Caltech is the other main consultant. There are about 300 other math and science specialists that have helped, coordinated by Andy Black in seasons 1-3, and now coordinated by Matt Kolokoff [4].
Six: Neil Sloane's Integer Sequence Database [5] was mentioned and used in episode 222 Backscatter.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.91 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 August 2007

Thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated. Some replies:

  1. It's been a while since I last visited Lady Shelley's website; I've just looked through it again, and it does seem very comprehensive. I've used it as a reference for the new book; however most of the information on the site is given either on the show or on websites that are generally considered to be more reputable than most, for example Amazon. It might be worth adding as references on the List of Numb3rs episodes article, and maybe also on the List of Numb3rs characters and related pages, though.
  2. I've added the blog post as a reference, but have retained the former reference also. I'm wary that both of the links are basically to adverts: the blog post is very much advertising Mathematica, whereas the existing one is advertising consultancy. I don't think that's avoidable, sadly, though.
  3. It's now mentioned in the article.
  4. He's now added to the list. Although, isn't 203 "Obsession", not "Better or Worse"?
  5. I'm not too sure how to include this in the article. Do you have a reference for it, at all? IMDB isn't too specific beyond Matt Kolokoff's role as a "Researcher".
  6. Ooh; that's a fun website, and well worth a mention in List of Numb3rs episodes.

Thanks again. Mike Peel 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to point 5, it's noted somewhere on one of the DVDs, and he actually has an interview. By Tuesday or Wednesday, I'll let you know which disc, as well as proper citation format. Socby19 02:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so I never got around to it. However, the recent book that came out about the math used on the show, shows that Gary Lorden is one of the consultants. Not sure if that's what you're looking for, but that's how I interpreted it. 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socby19 (talk • contribs)
Yup, the new book is definitely worth using as a source for that, as well as a number of other things. I just got a copy of it, and am looking forward to reading through it and adding bits to this entry once my life stops being crazy busy. BTW, {{Cite book}} is the appropriate template for the book, put within <ref></ref> tags.
Ed Pegg Jr. has also emailed me with some additional comments, which I unfortunately haven't had the time to reply to yet. A copy of his email is below. Mike Peel 17:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is entirely inappropriate for someone to recommend a Wikipedia mention of a company that they work for. In fact, 99% if not all of the suggested "things to mention" have no place in this article: This TV show that purports to be about math but constantly makes enormous factual errors, pronunciation errors, and has had most of the FBI guys facing so many hails of bullets that the realistic chance of even one of them surviving is approximately 0. There is absolutely no reason for a Wikipedia article to be like a permanent trivia museum of this show (and every reason for it not to be). Such an approach should be left to fansites.Daqu (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right, Daqu. For me the pronunciation errors are the most comical, since the suspension of disbelief tends to come crashing down for me at these moments --- the actor couldn't show himself up more if he pulled his pants down... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Numbers math promo.gif

Image:Numbers math promo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD table

There used to be a DVD table on this article. I think it was removed over not having fair-use rationale for the cover images. I'm going to add a text only chart as many TV shows that are out on DVD have it listed under their corresponding article. Socby19 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it as I thought it was better to discuss the DVDs in the sections on each series, rather than in a separate section. I was hoping that this might encourage some more content to be added about them - e.g. where else it has been released, what reactions it has caused, etc. Mike Peel 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The table should stay per Tables. The prose version was long enough as it was without the DVD description. As far as where it has been released, it should be noted as the first release for each region encoding (I'll do that for Europe). Reactions (if any) should only be made if it is something more worthy than a review (eg - faulty discs, or any reason for a recall). Episode reviews have probably, and most likely been made during regular broadcast airtime. Socby19 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Changing Europe back to UK since this article is written in English. Other countries are Germany and France. Socby19 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed TBD number of discs to 5 per our personal purchase from the PX of the past season. Well, TRIED to change it. Either it's the cable cut to our location or Wiki doesn't like our monopoly ISP here. If the change doesn't make the trip, can someone kindly add the change? And I'll not bother with making future changes due to the waste of my time at midnight, local time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.208.70.29 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

CalSci

the page Calsci redirects to here but has no explanation on the page. can the page be updated to include some information? Peachey88 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for reverting the article, and tables vs. prose

Over the course of the last ~ 6 months, I've been (gently) trying to encourage the referencing of as much of this article as possible. The recent changes have just removed 9 of those references, for no good reason. Hence I have reverted the article to a version with those references still in it. If someone reverts my revert, please can they make sure that the references are kept?

Something that we could do with generally discussing is: do we want information in tables, or in prose, in the article? I generally favour the latter, as it's easier to add more information to it, but from the recent changes I'm guessing that other people prefer the former? Mike Peel 08:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured since the DVDs were already released, there would be no need to have references. But I guess it's better off to have them. The tables are easier to read though. There's really nothing worth adding besides what is contained in the table. Socby19`

Online releases?

I'm thinking of adding a table that shows the iTunes Store, Amazon Unbox, and the Xbox Live Marketplace but I'm not sure if it's worth it. It definitely should be in the article somewhere. Socby19 05:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you planning on putting into this section? Are there numbers available, or would it just be a mention that the online releases exist? Mike Peel 07:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Either, or. I have both ready. I'd like to get some idea of what people would prefer. I'll leave it out until I get a good number of people supporting it either way. Socby19 05:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Keep at current location. Mike Peel 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Numb3rs → Numbers (TV series) — Despite the way the title card is written, the show name is still called Numbers. —Wikipedian 11:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support FinaleFever 11:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - can you cite this analysis that the title is really "Numbers"? Reginmund 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The CBS website officially says that the title is Numb3rs, as does the DVD titles. (Should stay lowercase, however, due to website. Nevertheless, the spelling is the same.) Just because it is pronounced that way, doesn't mean it should be moved accordingly. The title card determines the spelling. As with any article whose name that reflects a trademark, it is to be spelled the same way. Socby19 19:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - there is no problem with the name as it is; it agrees with the usage of the name on the show itself, on the official website, on the DVDs, on the IMDB website, on the TV.com website, in various TV guides, on the fan websites, ... need I continue? There is also no need to add the "(TV series)" on the end of Numb3rs, as we don't need disambiguation - there's nothing else with the same name. Also, why is there a general obsession with changing this article's name? I still hold that it was most correct as NUMB3RS. Mike Peel 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's the show's proper title. TayquanhollaMy work 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I support¡ I agree with Wikipedian. FinaleFever 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • How about moving it to Numb3rs (TV series) Think outside the box 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no need to add '(TV series)' because there is no other article with the word spelled 'Numb3rs' that isn't related to the show. Socby19 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title of the show is NUMB3RS with this in mind there is no need to have the (TV series) part either. --LadyShelley 04:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

Why is the title Numb3rs, instead of NUMB3RS? --68.224.247.53 12:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Numb3rs/Archive 1#Requested_move. Mike Peel 12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Mathematically realistic?

The article states:

"This mathematical validity and applicability of the equations has been confirmed by professional mathematicians.[12][13][1]"

This attitude is by no means widely shared among mathematicians. Undoubtedly, some of the equations have been accurate. But a number of articles in math journals have pointed out many major-league mathematical bloopers on the show, and many cases of abject mathematical nonsense.

This ought to be mentioned in the article rather than allowing this highly controversial quote to stand alone. The article reads like a puff piece written by the show's public relations department.Daqu (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. This [blog http://www.atsweb.neu.edu/math/cp/blog/] explains some of the math behind Numb3rs in more detail and offers some criticism of some inaccuracies. --CmaccompH89 (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is difficult to explain to the layman. The maths is a nonsense, but so is everything else in this and every other TV show. But it is really a lot less rubbish than pretty much everything out there (I understand medical shows are quite variable; and I would have thought 24 was fantasy until it became apparent that the current US administration bases policy on it). Importantly, the ideas in the math and in the story tie in, and I quite like the explanatory vignettes. Although in-story, the maths clarifies the situation, the show as a show works in the opposite way: the real-life explanations illustrate the ideas in the maths. So as a maths educator, I am quite happy with the show overall, as long as viewers remember that watching the show improves your maths skills as much as watching ER makes you a doctor.

Chain Factor

http://www.chainfactor.com/

Worth a look, with a couple sources this may be notable. At first, it appears as some free indie puzzle game in its beta stages, but if you play Power or Survival mode and reach certain conditions, "error messages" will appear revealing exchanges between two people: a mastermind, "s", and a programmer, "F". I enjoyed uncovering these messages and piecing the story together, when I came across a reference to a game called "Primacy". That's when it hit me; this story goes hand-in-hand with the Numb3rs episode of the same name. After taking a look at the forums, it appears everyone is much farther ahead of me; this is an alternate reality game (they've hidden clues in billboards, subway ads, even the CBS broadcasting schedule). Given that kind of effort, I find it hard not to believe that CBS has organized the whole thing (likely with the help of area/code, as noted here by a forumgoer). Of course, given its nature, it might be hard to source all of it, and I'm honestly not too good at this kind of thing. But if someone's willing to give it a shot, it may be worthwhile. --REALiTY (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

CalSci & Other Locations

Maybe we should include information about some of the common places shown on the show (EG: CalSci, The House, F.B.I. Field Office). For example with the CalSci it could have its own page because i'm sure we can talk enough about it make it noteable. I was board and came up with this (See below) but i suck at writing and other people could easily write it better than me and i got the idea from Authorized Personnel Only.

California Institute of Science (CalSci) is a fictional university based on and have the scenes shot at California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and the University of Southern California.
==History and Background==
==Personnel==

  • Professor Charlie Eppes who is a matematical geninus.
  • Professor Larry Fleinhardt is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist
  • Amita Ramanujan is a mathematician

Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 10:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode 209

Hi guys, in episode 209, there's a suspect on a pile of a load of explosives with a flare and the cops have surrounded him. If the man drops the flare they all die, if he surrenders he could go to jail/be executed for his crime, so he's stuffed either way. David Krumholtz comes up with more magical math, he says if you give the man more leverage, he'll be able to negotiate to a desirable peaceful outcome. What was this equation (or whatever) called please? Ryan4314 (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of math used - way too long

That's way too much information on the main article about 'some of the math used included', ie this:

"To assist the FBI in the show, Professor Charlie Eppes has invoked the following mathematical disciplines (among others): cryptanalysis, probability theory, game theory, partial differential equations, decision theory, graph theory, set theory, data mining and astrophysics. Famous scientists and mathematicians mentioned in the series include Archimedes, Francis Bacon (Episode 324), Thomas Bayes (Episodes 113, 201 and 408), Frank Benford (Episode 215), the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation (Episode 113), George Dantzig (Episode 307), Edsger Dijkstra (Episode 323), Albert Einstein, Paul Erdős, Euclid (Episode 310), Léon Foucault (Episode 104), Michael Faraday, John Farey, Sr. (Episode 202), Richard Feynman, Leonardo Fibonacci (Episodes 106 and 404), John Charles Fields (Episode 405), Adriaan Fokker (Episode 217), Joseph Fourier (Episodes 112, 207 and 407), Evariste Galois (Episode 101), George Gamow (Episode 410), the Goos-Hänchen_effect, Werner Heisenberg (Episode 102), Martin Hellman (Episode 324), Hero of Alexandria (Episode 408), Friedrich Kasiski (Episode 106), Joseph Kruskal (Episode 316), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Paul Pierre Lévy (Episode 312), Johann Benedict Listing (Episode 405), Hendrik Lorentz (Episode 324), Benoît Mandelbrot (Episode 409), Andrei Markov (Episodes 113 and 214), Ralph Merkle (Episode 324), Oskar Morgenstern (Episode 409), Isaac Newton (Episode 402), Emmy Noether (Episode 402), Max Planck (Episode 217), Siméon-Denis Poisson (Episode 212), John Preskill, F. P. Ramsey (Episode 216), Alfréd Rényi, Charles ReVelle (Episode 401), Bernhard Riemann (Episode 105), Kenneth Rosing (Episode 401), John Searle (Episode 410), Albert Nikolayevich Shiryaev (Episode 308), Neil Sloane (Episode 222), Willebrord Snellius (Snell's Law; Episode 403), Jakob Steiner (Episode 209), Alan Turing (Episode 410), John Venn (Episode 221), John von Neumann (Episodes 202 and 409), Georgy Voronoy (Episode 210) and Edward Witten."

It's too much clutter, and not really presented well (it took me a minute to realize it's alphabetized, and honestly, you'll only notice it if you're looking for it). Not only that, it's a list that looks like a run-on sentence. While it can be argued as informative, most of it isn't notable. Yes, most do have links to their respective articles, but the point I am trying to make is: What can a reader actually gain from this paragraph? The answer I find is that the show has presented many different principles of math. I think it's easier to say it that way. I would prefer to remove it now, but I want a consensus, and mainly, an argument of why it should stay. If somebody wants to know the math used, they can just go to the episode list, which could be mentioned. If I think of a reasonable sentence that lets the user know where to go, I'll replace the list with such. Socby19 (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I pared it down a few times and then gave up. I'm all for removing it and any other sort of list-y things like it as it doesn't add anything but a string of links to the article. --LadyShelley (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I did some digging into the history of the article. Mainly added by User:68.224.247.53. Socby19 (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reworked that area and separated out the concerns stuff so it can be expanded if sources are found. Take a look, edit as necessary. --LadyShelley (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could incorporate the mathematicians by adding a "Mathematicians mentioned:" list for each episode similar to the current "Mathematics used:" list for each episode. --CmaccompH89 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn on this idea: on one hand it sounds OK, but on the other I think it gets way to far into mindless trivia kind of stuff that I'm not sure an encyclopedia-type article should contain. --LadyShelley (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't find it as necessary, as the show tries to focus on methods and different strategies based on math. I don't think that mathematicians are mentioned as often as it should be to be included. Socby19 (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken links in references

http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=060105_05 is broken. 86.148.219.62 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

source needed

Under the section Representation of mathematics, subsection "Concerns from mathematicians" there is a source needed. I read the article linked from source 19 (Silverberg, Alice (November 2006). "Alice in NUMB3Rland"), this seems to be the right source. I'm not sure how to do the hyper-link correctly, if someone wants to check the article and put in the hyper-linked source that would be cool.

Is there a reason why the source information for Alice in NUMB3RLand was removed from the first paragraph of "concerns by mathematicians"?. Was this an edit error that it needs to be replaced or is the source incorrect? --LadyShelley (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS says title should be Numbers (TV series)

Despite the results of the above poll, the article should be moved. See MOS:TRADE. Also note examples: we have Seven (film) rather than Se7en, Wal-Mart rather than Wal★Mart, etc. Mike R (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not this again. This is the sixth time the article title has come up with some demand that it change. (June 2006, August 2006, April 2007, October 2007, and now March 2008.) Is there nothing else to discuss? --LadyShelley (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact I have never seen the series referred to by any other name other than Numb3rs.Mmm commentaries (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually Mike R, the Manual of Style does not mention the nature of trademark spelling once. It does however, reflect on grammar and capitalization; this is written in the first paragraph as "Often, these names are written in several different ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and presentation." The case where Se7en and Wal?Mart (where does the question mark come from?) are examples is nowhere to be found on that page. Sorry, no dice. Socby19 (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

...and where do you stand on MASH versus M*A*S*H? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit 4-18-08

I edited the "season" synopses section. The first line of the season 1 and 2 synopses by simply adding and deleting words for continuity reasons. I wanted to edit the season 3 and 4 paragraphs, but with the news articles I couldn't decipher the code accurately enough and the season 3, 4, and 5 seasons were inserted differently, but if someone else would like to type-match all 5 seasons that would be great... maybe find news articles for the first two seasons...

Dmw61003 (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Megan Reeves

There seems to be an edit war going on as to whether Megan Reeves stays in the cast and characters list. Please can we stop having this edit war, and discuss the change instead?

My opinion is that, as she's been a major character in seasons 2-4, she should remain in the list of cast and characters regardless of whether she will be in any future seasons or not. We could add a season range to the list of cast and characters, so that people could know which ones are currently in the show. Mike Peel (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We got rid of Sabrina Lloyd (who played Terry Lake) after the first season. Perhaps we should just make another minisection titled "former major characters," or something similar. NuclearWarfare (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Accurate math or not?

The article claims: "Actual mathematics is presented in the show; the equations on the chalkboards are mathematically valid, and are somewhat applicable to the situations presented in each show. This mathematical validity and applicability of the equations has been asserted by professional mathematicians." But in the following section it says: "At least one mathematician consultant to the show has expressed concern with its use of math, which is inserted after the script is written, to provide plausible sounding jargon, rather than having consultants involved at all stages of the story development."

This sounds a bit contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.161.92 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


The catch is that mathematical validity is not a very meaningful concept when applied to a stand-alone equation (sure, 1+1=2 is a mathematically valid statement; and yet we encounter the romantically valid 1+1=1 more often in drama), and, furthermore, that "somewhat applicable" is also not saying a whole lot---you wouldn't want a mechanic fixing your car with a somewhat appropriate tool.

Season 5 start date

Observation: The cited article doesn't actually say anything about when the new season will start. --DocumentN (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixing. Thanks! NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Numbers_(TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1137052414"