 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
> other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
> involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land! He teaches you how to line up pool
shots too. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> You mean "A Beautiful Mind".
yes!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
>
> how about a mathematician? "A brilliant mind"?...
Which is only appealing due to his schizophrenia, and the drama (most
of it untrue) that it created.
--
... OS/2 VirusScan - "Windows found: Remove it? (Y/y)"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
> > other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
> > involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
>
> Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land!
you geek! :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
>>> other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
>>> involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
>> Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land!
>
> you geek! :P
Hey, I was in third grade at the time. I was more impressed they were
showing 8-year-olds how to pool shark than I was by the math itself.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
Good Will Hunting?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote:
> If you include the bonus features, it like 3 Days of stuff. The
> commentary from the hobbit actors was priceless.
I have yet to see the movies in commentary mode (each movie has, IIRC,
at least 3 commentary tracks).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> While I was stationed in Iceland, I did a business trip to the town of
> Thorshofn, and there I stayed at a very nice bed and breakfast. One night
> there was film on TV called "The Night is Dark on the Shores of the
> Baltic" or something like that. The movie was originally in Russian, and
> it had Icelandic subtitles. Having only the very slightest grasp of
> either language, the movie was a total mystery to me.
>
> The next day I was chatting with some Icelanders at a radar site that was
> the purpose of my visit, and I mentioned it to them. They replied that
> the subtitles didn't help; the movie was still inscrutable.
I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> I guess the thing is that technical details aren't very interesting in
>> a movie...
>
> It's not quite a counterexample, but I found that the anime Hikaru No Go
> was quite interesting despite going into at least a bit of technical
> detail about go. Can't think of any examples with mathematics though,
> but I bet it's possible. Perhaps part of the reason that it's easier to
> do in a TV series than a movie is that it takes a lot of time to explain
> even the basics of more technical subjects if you're audience isn't
> already familiar with it.
Go is a strange game - the rules are vastly simpler than Chess, and yet
the resulting game is vastly *more complicated*.
Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
> me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
> in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
Computer go is much easier to beat than computer chess. That's because
go cannot be played so well with brute-force searching.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
