Not a good movie for math people - Pi (1998) Discussion

[–] halleluja_lock_and_load 16 years ago

It's clear that Nealyboy is a mathematician wherein his first post he has mispelled 'hoping'.
Unless of course he actually was hopping for the best... Amputee perhaps?

"Don't take medicine for anxiety, you are suppressing your superpowers".

reply

[–] nealyboy 16 years ago

Yep, because mathematicians care about spelling so much...

reply

[–] squeemu 16 years ago

They should...

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 15 years ago

Seems to me some people in here try to sound alot smarter than they actually are. I'm a complete retard and I loved the movie.

reply

[–] onetonrobo 15 years ago

Many of the guys on here are smart but don't really know or care to be humble about it. also, I would not go so far as to call my self a "retard" but i am not very bright either and loved the film.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 15 years ago

How did you reach that conclusion? Can you tell that they are smart from their writing? The use of fancy words? It probably means they write in their native language. I don't think the average viewer of this film is any smarter than that of other films, if they are I'd like to see studies. On the other hand what do I know, I'm a retard after all.

reply

[–] onetonrobo 15 years ago

I don't know why you put yourself down like that, dude. I'm just saying that most people are smart, that's all. If you're talking about intellectuals, then I agree with you that these guys could be putting on a different face.

reply

[–] rooprect 15 years ago

I love math and saw this movie hopping for the best. Unfortunately, this movie's plot is very unrealistic for the mathematical thinker.

I'd say both mathematicians and Wall Street traders will have trouble accepting the suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about serious Wall Street traders, not daytraders who play on their laptop in their underwear & believe charts can predict the future. Wall Street grinds those people for breakfast every day.

Wall Street is driven by external influences: political events, wars, plane crashes, the weather, Madonna's underwear and such. For Max to even come close to predicting the most basic stock trends, he would have to plug his computer into CNN, BBC, Xinhua, the Weather Channel, Entertainment Tonight, Farmer's Daily, and every news source available on the planet. Then he might be able to predict stocks' reactions to events (which is what successful traders do), but he could never predict the events themselves.

I could actually believe the mathematical side of the movie, because they kept it somewhat ambiguous, and you could say the film was not about math but rather a man's obsession with math. But when they blatantly showed him & his 5 1/4 floppy predicting stock prices, gawd that was tough to get past. I think that's what dates this movie a bit. In the late 90s, that's when all the Wall Street 'chartists' came out of the woodwork, saying they can predict stocks by looking at graphs. We don't hear much from them these days.

reply

[–] TheAnimalMother 15 years ago

It is clear many of the people in this thread misunderstand his osessive search to some degree. While it may be unrealistic to an extent. His idea of understanding a stock market pattern by finding a standard creative pattern in the mathematical system of natural creation could theoretically reveal a very useful number. It sounds crazy perhaps, however theoretically this has an extreme amount of interesting ideas at heart that are based on very sound, and in fact very basic math. Finding this kind of a number is quite unrealistic, because you are likely, if not surely dealing in astronomical data. However his theory behind it is not at all flawed. Especially when you consider the base of theoretical physics, in that all things are an extention of one grand event often described as the big bang. And even that there are only four fundamental forces in the universe. If all things mathematical are extending from one singular source, or even going only as far back as the four fundamental forces, then theoretically, even philosophically this has a hell of a lot to say.

Sure, there is a very fictional story going on here about some 216 digit code name for God or whatever. Nonetheless, the inclusion here also of an irrational number extending from the structure of a perfect circle, and infinite cyclical patterns of math being a major structural base for natural creativity also have a lot to say on a theoretical and philosophical level.

If you are missing these things, you are really missing the most brilliant aspects of this film. You also really aren't that into math as a language and how it relates to us and nature itself. In other words, you really aren't that into numbers at all.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

reply

[–] rooprect 15 years ago

I understand & appreciate the intent of the movie. But Aranofsky throws too many preposterous elements into the works, and that's what I said destroys the suspension of disbelief.

As I said, the kid writes a computer program that predicts stock prices to 1/8 of a point. He fits this program on a 5 1/4" floppy disk (720 kb). Don't you agree that this is a bit "Knight Rider" ish? 720 kb wouldn't even fit the first minute of a Rihanna mp3; he should've known this even back in 1998.

Similarly, Aranofsky at times tries to get too detailed about the mathematics, and that exposes the flaws in his approach. If he had kept it completely ambiguous, then perhaps we could just accept it. But in his efforts to convince the audience, he ends up showing too much of his poker hand which is a dud. I think for the most part, he did keep it ambiguous which is why I could accept the math part, but the stock thing really lost me.

An example of how to handle fantasy in a believeable way would be 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick remains extremely vague (so vague that much of the audience is totally lost) as to the origin, purpose and mechanism of the Monolith. As such, he is free to take us on a wild ride. If--like in the book 2001--he had tried to explain that there are aliens who planted the Monolith as a means of transmitting psychic images and that these aliens were watching humans and performing experiments on them--then the movie would've lost credibility to all astronomers, physicists and scientists.

That's what I'm talking about. Aronofsky is more of a "Star Wars" kind of guy, which is fine because it's great entertainment. But as the original poster said, the scientists will probably not fall for it.

reply

[–] TheAnimalMother 15 years ago

I agree that overall, the story is unbelievable, and not just in the math aspects. However much like a Kubrick film, since you used the comparison, it has a lot more to say than originally meets the eye. The fact that the fictional aspects of a film are not always believable does not always take away from its overall artistic expression. I would say that Pi certainly qualifies as that kind of a work. However, obviously, not all people are going to feel the same about that.

The fact that Kubrick made the Monolith aspect of 2001 totally vague is in my opinion at least, a bold statement. Kubrick's point I think differs from the book 100%. The fact that no one is to really understand the ending of the 2001 film is not for purposes of suspending disbelief in my view. From what I see, it's rather a grand statement about the human situation. As some reviewer once said, "zero out of 100 people will understand the ending". And the fact that no one is meant to understand it is a very purposeful point to the film.

I could agree that Kubrick was a master storyteller, and that Aronofsky is not. Though I think he does a decent job here. Although I believe most of the real genius aspects of this films underlying themes, the truly beautiful things it points at mathematically, philisophically and theoretically are more the product of Sean Gullette and/or Eric Watson, the writers. Mainly because I have seen nothing else this brilliantly meaningful from Aronofsky since. Although The Fountain was an attempt I suppose, lol.
I also don't think the fiction of this film takes away from its depth. Though if the film were more believable in its fiction, overall it would be a more powerful film. I could agree with that. Though things are also gained in its obvious fiction in this case. The fiction was not meant to be fallen for in my view, and if it were, the film would bear the heavy burden of two things, too much spiritual philosophy, and too much meaningful math for most people to endure. The inclusion of the mystical element and the math element is key to this films full thematic expression. And to make this film too believable in the spiritual and math aspects of the story would have taken away from the simple expression of the truths that underline this film. So in a very deliberate way, I think the fictional aspects of certain math and spiritual concepts of the film are meant to be seen as fake. One, it only lightens the load for the viewer to bare in its symbolism & meaning, and two that the factual concepts are emphasized. Just as a lie beside its truth, only makes the truth that much more bold and obvious. If this films fiction were too believable, then people would be trying to dissect every single aspect of the film into some greater meaning, and would likely miss much of the real value expressed in the story. Though I think many miss it anyway. Nonetheless, interpretations are just that, interpretations.

My main point in this thread is simply that there is enough real interesting philosophical and theoretical concepts of natural mathematics here to ponder. Certainly enough to be a film enjoyable enough for math people. Contrary to the OP's point. In fact, I bet Isaac Newton would love this film.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

reply

[–] rooprect 15 years ago

So in a very deliberate way, I think the fictional aspects of certain math and spiritual concepts of the film are meant to be seen as fake. One, it only lightens the load for the viewer to bare in its symbolism & meaning, and two that the factual concepts are emphasized. Just as a lie beside its truth, only makes the truth that much more bold and obvious. If this films fiction were too believable, then people would be trying to dissect every single aspect of the film into some greater meaning, and would likely miss much of the real value expressed in the story.

That's a really interesting way of looking at it, and I'll have to give it another watch with that in mind. It reminds me of Amadeus which is preposterously fictional (deliberately so), but that's what gives the thematic elements more power, to the degree that the director can make Salieri into a Satanic character. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

As with this thread, there are people who say Amadeus is poppycock to historians & musicians. But I take your approach that the obvious deviation from historical fact takes the burden off the film, giving the director room to explore philosophy without people nitpicking the details of Mozart's life. Historians & musicians should love Amadeus.

So maybe I've come around 180 degrees on Pi.

The only other Aronofsky film I've seen was "The Prestige". Even though it was very creative & enjoyable I don't think it was a powerful film like the others we're talking about. Pi is definitely the best of his I've seen.

**edit** Oops I just realized "The Prestige" wasn't Aronofsky. So I guess I haven't seen any of his other films.

reply

[–] TheAnimalMother 15 years ago

Your Amadeus comparison is definitely similar. The obvious fiction does make these films concentrate more on thematic ideas that are more personal questions for the viewer themselves. The films become more intimately imortant to each individual viewer in this way, because the film is not really trying to convince you of anything, it is rather just throwing out ideas to ponder that relate to everyone in some way.

Pi would be an unwatchable film for most people if it were overly factual in every aspect. It is the conceptual theories and questions that are explored in Pi that make it a powerful film in terms of our place in reality. The search for order within the chaos of the universe we know, our connection to the infinite through mathematical pattern, and even the implication of our logical seperation from the infinite through irrational numbers. As we see in physics, the behaviour of light defies human logic. Physics itself does not apply to the same rules we place on things in the 4 dimentional world. There are many valuable things that are expressed and explored in this film that really do have something to say, beyond the fictional story. The fictional story here kind of plays with the real conceptual ideas it presents, only to open up even more interesting questions that can relate to the real world and real people.

I can totally see why a person could get turned off of certain things in this film. Watching a film like Pi with expectations could totally ruin the experience and the ideas that actually are of value. Getting too lost in the fiction could also easily make one reject much of the film. I happened to be exploring linguistic patterns, and patterns in nature in general when I saw this film. So to me I easily caught the bigger picture of the things this film is exploring.

Funny that you bring up The Prestige, because a couple of Nolan's early films, Memento and Insomnia also relate to more interesting ideas in this film Pi. Such as the concept that reflections are a huge part of the inner make up of the structures that we are a part of. The Fibonacci sequence is a mirror pattern, originating from two ones that interact in a reflective way. 1,1,2,3,,5,8,13,21,34 and so on, infinitely. Each number expressed in the pattern is simply a result of the two previously reflecting numbers. Of course we see a huge example of this reflective aspect of nature within our very selves. In our minds we literally reflect in order to think. Every cell in the human body uses a mirror of genetic code in order to communicate and function.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

reply

[–] miffo 15 years ago

As I said, the kid writes a computer program that predicts stock prices to 1/8 of a point. He fits this program on a 5 1/4" floppy disk (720 kb). Don't you agree that this is a bit "Knight Rider" ish? 720 kb wouldn't even fit the first minute of a Rihanna mp3; he should've known this even back in 1998.

I do agree that viewed with todays standards it does seem ridiculous, but remember that 60 kb landed us on the moon (I might be wrong in exactly the amount of kb as they used kiloword, not kilobytes and I'm not sure about the translation between them), but it wasn't much more anyway). 720 Kb would have been a paradise when the moon-lander was being programmed.

Then the computer he's using is quite clearly not any kind of standard computer either. The CPU itself is suspended, and he has to use latexgloves to remove the chip. If the chip was just the core, then sure. Human fat from the fingers might do some harm to it.
It is however a type of spit'n'glue supercomputer (yes, contradiction in terms, but I couldn't find a better way to put it) he is using, so the 5 1/2 floppy didn't bother me at all to be honest.

Besides that, we can clearly see that the system he is running is a very basic DOS (no, not MS-DOS), most likely designed by himself just to have access to the computers calculating powers, and nothing more. This doesn't take much space at all.
The actual program he is running only has one purpose, to spit out numbers, giving me the impression its basically a math-formula with a print command (cout, dump, whatever you want). This wouldn't take much space either, and the floppy it self wouldn't be more than half full actually.

Just my view of that particular point. :)

"The yelling will cease and the killing will commence!"

reply

[–] maxloh-1 12 years ago

Hey mr. pretend smartie pants. Looks like you don't understand math or computers or the very nature of INFORMATION at all. You CAN fit a lot of programs in 720 kb. That's 720,000 chars!

A Rihanna mp3 contains a ****LOAD of information compared to instructions for a computer!!! It is AUDIO!

http://www.maxloh.com/soundtracks/
http://smptv.net/student.php?id=101

reply

[–] rooprect 12 years ago

Tell you what, bill gates, you write me a 720kb floppy program that is capable of doing anything more than Atari Pong and I'll bow to your superior intellect.

reply

[–] maxloh-1 12 years ago

Dude, do you even program? You can do a lot of stuff with 720kb of information. The only reason modern programs you use take up more than 720 kb is because of all that extra media and *beep* The stock program doesn't even need a user interface or any images or bells or whistles at all. And considering that you don't need any media such as video or audio or even the stock data since you're just housing the algorithm that predicts the stock prices, and the fact that it's probably some ingenious clever "elegant" thing rather than a CONVOLUTED MESS of rules to make the algorithm (since the guy in the movie is a genius), it's pretty obvious that 720kb would be enough.

Also, I'm not demonstrating "superior intellect". I'm CALLING THE GUY OUT because he has false conceptions about reality. He's not dumb; he's just wrong, and so are you.

http://www.maxloh.com/soundtracks/
http://smptv.net/student.php?id=101

reply

[–] rooprect 12 years ago

How about you try sticking to the point. Nobody is denying that programs have tons of useless crap. What I said is it's ridiculous to think a program capable of collecting, analyzing, processing and predicting stock prices--effectively doing what thousands of trading programs have been unable to do--can fit on a 5 1/4" floppy. The rest is just you trying to pick fights with people. Have fun with yourself, son.

reply

[–] maxloh-1 12 years ago

Isn't that the point of the movie? That this mathematician/genius figured out what thousands of trading programs have been unable to do, and that he used an elegant solution without resorting to thousands of convoluted sets of rules? Such a program could indeed fit on an oldschool floppy. It's a math movie, and a big theme of the movie is the "God number" and/or using "simple" ingenious methods to predict great patterns, and by "simple" I don't necessarily mean easy to figure out, but rather taking up not a lot of space, in the attitude of E = MC^2. The process of figuring out E = MC^2 was probably long and painful and required great leaps of creativity but once it's figured out the rule is so simple to define. The same kind of effect can be applied to this situation in the plot. What do you think all those seashells and golden ratio and pi discussions were for? Mathematical elegance is how this guy's brain works and it doesn't need a *beep*ton of space or instructions to do something amazing.

Speaking of which 720,000 chars gives you like 20,000 lines of code and if you've ever written a program that big I'm sure you'd know you can do a ton of *beep* with that. How do you even know that those modern-day "High frequency trading" stock algorithms use more than 20,000 lines of code? They probably don't; they probably just have some complicated math formulas and then have to implement that in a few lines. The rest is the framework like how to download the stocks and buy/sell etc. As well, I think machine code since it's in binary would require less information than human-readable source code anyway, so therefore it would be actually more than 20,000 lines of code.

http://www.maxloh.com/soundtracks/
http://smptv.net/student.php?id=101

reply

[–] twiggy232 15 years ago

if you say you are a "math person" or whatever that is, and didnt enjoy the film because of it, i think maybe you went into seeing it with the wrong expectations.

this film is about a number theorist who is trying to find patterns wherever he can, and the odd bits they put in the film about mathematicians etc. aren't really meant to mean anything significant or explain things (except the part on the golden ratio).

anyway thats just my theory, as i guess im a "math person" but i still enjoyed this film.

ps. also ye the predicting the stock market part purely on patterns was quite unbelievable, but i just let it go...Even though you can't predict it purely on maths, using computers & maths to make complicated algorithms that process information in microseconds can be used to make lots of money on the stock market (also known as High frequency trading -HFT)

reply

[–] Henry J Sosenite 15 years ago

The movie isn't about math. It's about numerology.

This vine is for hitting ghosts.

reply

[–] RCRathgeber 15 years ago

Right.

Max: "I'm sure you've intoned every 216-digit number."

That would take quite a while, even at one per second.

reply

[–] TheAnimalMother 15 years ago

^OP, see my above post.^

leeds_manc also hits the nail on the head.

I think Mandelbrot also has something to say to you.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

reply

[–] kpocala 15 years ago

Could you please be more, specific?

reply

[–] samanosuche 15 years ago

I study computer engeneering,i liked this movie overall, but hated the ending. The ending for me is the most important part of the movie, so i'd give "Pi" a 6. I mean artistically i enjoyed it, but it's obvious the director doesn't want math as we would think of it(realistic math) to be the main theme of the movie, it's seems somehow he doesn't like maths much, maybe he wasn't that good in it at school:P. Is there a movie about math which uses plausible math theories?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joshsiret 15 years ago

Ok, is toy story in the two 10 250 films because it realistically depicts toys, is star wars in the top ten because it depicts intergalactic space, is inception a great film because you can buy a bottle a dream medicine from your local pharmacy? No no no.

This film's main character was a mathematician... his hobby, his work, and his life was maths. From my understanding the point of the film was how the main character was under going psychological problems, evidently due his love for maths. I make reference to the quote about Archimedes, also the ending with the drill. It was not a documentary on maths. However, another fantastic aspect of the film was the philosophical insight into maths it's self. There were no proofs, just ideas...

"
1. Mathematics is the language of nature.

2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge.

Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.
"

These are no mathematical axioms, just ideas. If you gave this film a 6 based on it's mathematical content... you can't see passed your glasses.

It's ugly, like look at you! It's a damn shame
Just remember All Caps when you spell the man name

reply

[–] Young-Champ 15 years ago

I'm sincerely intrigued. What part of the movie didn't you like?
You call yourself a maths guy, so what was bad for you in terms of mathematics?

I'm not understanding where you guys are coming from. Little things create the big things. The world is built upon a code of different formulas and mathematics. That's right, a CODE. The main character was trying to find the code, the pattern and the meaning of life (as it seems) through the numbers (aka code).
And one of the codes he did notice was the spiral, that spiral is built on your ear, the Milky Way, Sea Shells, etc. The main character mentioned more references to it. Some would say that this spiral is a trademark of an architecture.
DURING the process, he was becoming obsessed, his mind was overloading & his mind literally "crashed" (like his computer).

During the movie, there are two different people that have interest in him. A group of Jews looking for God's name through the numbers & some investigator from a supposed investment firm (as it looked like). Now, I don't know how TRUE or UNTRUE the numbers for God's name is (if it even is true) but either way, how at the beginning of the movie that Jewish guy was describing a correlation in Hebrew with its numbers & words, it was interesting, to say the least.

About the stock market, the stock market is an organization of businesses. The ups & downs & the investments have to do with business decisions, big events, holidays, seasons, economy, competition, supply & demand, etc, etc, etc.
ALTHOUGH there are some people that say, for example that the STOCK MARKET is a FRONT to gain money from investors and give back a certain amount back or not give it back at all. Meaning that the CEO's and Board Members withhold profits and keep it undisclosed. Now why would they do that?? Keeping a low profile, not getting charged for unethical business moves, give people a hand in the business so that they have more political power & power from the general public, keep a good image, indirect advertisement, not getting prosecuted for running a monopoly, etc, etc, etc.
Since the cash being disclosed is not the real amount, a pattern could emerge. And there are other possibilities of other sh** that could happen for a pattern to be up in the stock market.
Maybe it would be more understandable if you dropped the "No! That can't happen! That ain't right! They don't do it like this!" & one dimensional thinking attitude.

ANYWAYS! To end it all, my own opinion is that this movie symbolizes a "Barrier" in the matrix. The main character (and his mentor or old friend) tried to break through this barrier, ultimately they received a very dis-pleasant, discomforting and deadly shock. This shock brought them to the point of death. Capitalism & order.

And since the main character was always focusing on the codes & the little things in life, he never had the chance to look at the beauty and bigger picture of what life was. When he stopped his pursuit for the meaning of life (in the numbers), he started to see it.

reply

[–] FlaggingCard 14 years ago

I think everybody is over thinking this movie way too much. (what a coincidence) This movie reminds me of the quote from The Watchmen graphic novel of Rorschach, "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long."

I won't go as far as him to say that there are no patterns, and ultimately I'm not sure I care. And, even his exact quote is not really the point of this movie. This is what Pi is really about, as I put it: if you stare at something long enough, you can find patterns in anything.

Fittingly (or is that ironically? Whatever...), that's what intelligent people do with this movie and it's plot, themes, etc. They miss that real point of the movie and find patterns that aren't there. Engaging in mental chess games, or as Woody Allen put in Annie Hall, "mental masturbation."

Don't take that the wrong way of course, I've been plenty guilty of such things myself. Fortunately, I've just become more aware that I do that stuff and put it in it's proper place these days.

reply

[–] billyyounger 14 years ago

As someone who is not particularly great at math I cannot attest to the accuracy of the mathematics and the correlating jargon. However, I can easily see the original posters point. While I am a devote lover of film and truly understand the need for suspension of disbelief in all mediums of fiction, when the back drop of a story or a character hinges on a belief or idea and then fails to represent it correctly it makes it hard to enjoy. I am a social worker working towards becoming a therapist. When I see characters who is in my line of work that acts in a fashion that is unrealistic or unethical as a result of the writers failure to do proper research (as opposed to an intentional character flaw) it aggravates me. It is the screenplay equivalent of seeing a bewildered crew member stumble into a shot of a period piece before quickly retreating jelly donut in tow , or a set piece falling down revealing the cheap plywood innards of the “space ship”, or seeing a giant f-ing zipper on a monsters costume. You knew going in that it was all fake but that little slip up pulls you out of the moment entirely and makes it hard to get it back. When dealing with a science (physical, social, or otherwise) do the research or make it ambiguous. Primer is a great sci fi movie that uses ambiguity to a beautiful extent. All that being said I loved Pi (it was the first DVD I ever bought) though I have not seen it in years and am now going to have to rewatch it to see if it stands the test of time.

reply

[–] sickboy53 14 years ago

I agree with OP. Although this movie is a very good psychological thriller, is a bad math-related movie.

A number can never be intresting per se, or be the key to existence. On the other hand, something like the Euler's identity can.

What is intresting is the actual relationships between numbers, not the numbers themselves. So that 216-digit number is just PLAIN CRAP.

reply

[–] zielko 14 years ago

>A number can never be intresting per se, or be the key to existence.

Prove it ^.^

reply

[–] CrazyVaclav 13 years ago

I agree with OP. Although this movie is a very good psychological thriller, is a bad math-related movie.

I'd say that this movie is generally bad at science.

The way the word "theory" was totally misused throughout the movie, for example, got on my nerves early on, because a scientist such as the main character should know much better. And then the nonsense about a computer "virus" cited as the only explanation for misfunctioning programs. That certainly was very amateurish-sounding for a scientist.

The last straw was the fact that Cohen did not refute the numerologists' theistical B.S.

Personally, I like my sci-fi a bit better researched.

As for the people insulting commenters who didn't like the movie: Face it, you are idiots. Insulting someone for not liking a favourite flick of yours, is one of the true marks of utter and complete idiocy. Deal with it, preferrably in real life.

reply