How accurate is Numb3rs?

[KnickNut3]

I started a thread like this on "Las Vegas," and I'm wondering about "Numb3rs."

A lot of real forensic scientists hate CSI because it's overdramafied and often technically inaccurate. I'm talking solely about technical accuracy right now.

I'm a mathematics minor and physics/econ major (the two "applied maths" my school offers), but I don't quite know all the things he's talking about (although I obviously understand all the dumbed-down explainations). For those math/applied math Ph.D's, M.S.'s, or hardcore B.S.'s who have seen the show, how applicable/accurate is the math used on the show? How much of it is kind of a stretch of a principle to make it fit into the plot? And what about the scribbling on chalkboards that you see in the background... is that real stuff, or fake? The hyperbolic plots that the Reimann sums were centered around a couple weeks ago didn't seem very logical, but I'm no expert.

Thanks for the info.

 

[CrackRabbit]

TV != Realism, unless you like PBS or the Discovery Channel.

 

[ArmenK]

I believe they have a Cal Tech prof as a consultant for all the math stuff so I'm assuming it's correct.

 

[KnickNut3]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
TV != Realism, unless you like PBS or the Discovery Channel.

I'm not talking about the realism of the show, just the feasiblility of the math application.

Originally posted by: ArmenK
I believe they have a Cal Tech prof as a consultant for all the math stuff so I'm assuming it's correct.

Yeah, I remember reading that. Then again, how much are they listening to him?

 

[sygyzy]

I think it's mostly accurate simply because they don't show you all the real math. The two episodes I saw so far have nothing that would make me think it was fake. I mean it's not like they are showing you the exact equations. It's not that difficult to sit there and stare at a sheet of numbers and match them up to numbers from train accidents (recent episode about train saboteur).

 

[Drakkon]

from the episodes i saw he deals with probobility and pattern matching, both of which are very vague areas of mathematics imho due to the ability to see patterns isn't necessarily mathematical all the time and probobility as its shown in the show only works a certain % of the time

btw degree is in mathematics focusing on topology...had a lecture on number theory in movies...most of the time they'll hire a guy but in the long run it ends up being a buncha numbers on a chalk borad that may or may not make sense...but usually doesn't have anything to do with the specific problem at hand.

 

[ArmenK]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
from the episodes i saw he deals with probobility and pattern matching, both of which are very vague areas of mathematics imho due to the ability to see patterns isn't necessarily mathematical all the time and probobility as its shown in the show only works a certain % of the time

btw degree is in mathematics focusing on topology...had a lecture on number theory in movies...most of the time they'll hire a guy but in the long run it ends up being a buncha numbers on a chalk borad that may or may not make sense...but usually doesn't have anything to do with the specific problem at hand.

What do you mean when you say probability is very vague?

 

[her209]

Yeah, its like watching a movie "hacker" bruteforce a password in under a minute. Utter bullsh!t.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: KnickNut3

Originally posted by: ArmenK
I believe they have a Cal Tech prof as a consultant for all the math stuff so I'm assuming it's correct.

Yeah, I remember reading that. Then again, how much are they listening to him?

Star Trek used to have an astrophysicist on staff to help with their technobabble.

Doing most shows like that is a juggle between giving enough information to be relevant to the science, while
not getting in the way of telling a good story.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

In the first episode, I caught some major errors in the guy's conclusions. I'm sure it's wildly inaccurate..........like pretty much anything to do with computers on 24. LOL

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
In the first episode, I caught some major errors in the guy's conclusions. I'm sure it's wildly inaccurate..........like pretty much anything to do with computers on 24. LOL

What's one example?

 

[cjgallen]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
In the first episode, I caught some major errors in the guy's conclusions. I'm sure it's wildly inaccurate..........like pretty much anything to do with computers on 24. LOL

"THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO HACK THE INTERNET"

 

[CycloWizard]

I watched the first episode... I'd say the stuff is really possible, but not the way they actually did it. The way he approached the situation would require weighting functions for each variable that could only really be based on experience, which he didn't really have. They said he applied his formula to similar cases to check it and it worked 4/5 times, but that's ridiculous. They could have said he used those cases to generate the weighting functions and it would have all added up. All in all, it wasn't nearly as cheesy as I thought it would be. And yes, some of us really do see curves and equations pop into our heads when we look at things. We're nerds.

 

[isasir]

They talked about this in today's NY Newsday:

A mathematician at Stanford said:
"Certainly people use math to solve crimes. THe math in all the episodes has been pretty darn close. They just make it seem quicker and cleaner. In the first episode, one of the actors wrote the actual formula used in the case on a chalkboard. The show's producers contacted mathematicians at Cal Tech so all the math you see was written by mathematicians, within the confines of a television drama. Interestingly, the reviews in the newspapers said it was too implausible, but it's all based on real cases - they just seem too good to be true."

 

[new2AMD]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
In the first episode, I caught some major errors in the guy's conclusions. I'm sure it's wildly inaccurate..........like pretty much anything to do with computers on 24. LOL

What's one example?

Yes, I would like to hear them also.

 

[ZOOYUKA]

It is still a pretty entertaining show.

 

[Joemonkey]

its a great show, decent acting, intelligent topics, and on at friday night... gonna be cancelled just like brimstone and wonder falls (I'm sure you guys can name more).

I loved the episode where he explained PHI to the female FBI detective!

 

[Argo]

I just wish 24 would get a computer nerd on their staff so the show becomes more believable. As for numbers, they're stretching it somewhat. Like where he was able to find the location of a serial killer based on crime locations. You'll need a lot more data points for that.

 

[daveymark]

I was reading an article, that's not the actor's hands writing the equations on the board, it's a math professor's hands. So it would seem pretty accurate I suppose.

 

[RedRooster]

Originally posted by: ArmenK

Originally posted by: Drakkon
from the episodes i saw he deals with probobility and pattern matching, both of which are very vague areas of mathematics imho due to the ability to see patterns isn't necessarily mathematical all the time and probobility as its shown in the show only works a certain % of the time

btw degree is in mathematics focusing on topology...had a lecture on number theory in movies...most of the time they'll hire a guy but in the long run it ends up being a buncha numbers on a chalk borad that may or may not make sense...but usually doesn't have anything to do with the specific problem at hand.

What do you mean when you say probability is very vague?

Like in the first one where he calculated where the guy would strike next.
How can you calculate human variability? It's impossible. Sure, if it were a robot attacking, maybe, but to actually come up with an equation to calculate how the human mind(and not just any human, the wildly variable one of a murderer) will work in the future based on past behavior(a half a dozen attacks, at that) is just a tad ridiculous.
That show is brutal.