/sci/ - Science & Math

accurately depicts numerologists

>>1258709

is numerologist even a "legit" profession/practice?

non-mathfag here

>>1258709
trollface.jpg

I found it enjoyable, but I know very little about math so that probably helps.

>>1258727
I enjoyed the film more back when I didn't study maths, but even back then I knew it was all a big load of shit.

The portrait of his paranoid personality is well crafted, no matter how shitty the math stuff is.

Good Will Hunting on the other hand sucks donkey balls, so does A Beautiful Mind. Don't even watch it as a joke.

purtty good movie

>>1258776
>>1258776

there are no words to describe my hate to Good Will Hunting.

>>1258715
"Legit" as in, can you take money for talking to people about numbers? Yes.
The film is not so much about that though.

Here, have some other /sci/-related films:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3909854615539675694# - Primer
http://www.novamov.com/video/4a71ac733afeb - 12 Monkeys

the only good math movie (it's also gay)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV67Sj2jkVg&feature=related

>>1258799

I've seen 12 monkeys. And Primer, I fuckin hate that movie

>>1258808
Thanks for informing us.

>>1258820

hey no problem.

>>1258482
>>1258482
>>1258482
>>1258482

OP, is this you?

>>1258856

no

>>1258856
hewbrew? WTFISTHIS

>>1258884
Go watch the movie.

>>1258800
watch seen, theory seems familliar, imdb it .. Alan Turing..


>i came.

>>1258895
coincidentally the name of the game they play in the movie is 'Go'.

So what does /sci thinks of the basis of the movie there are patterns everywhere in nature, therefore we can predict a pattern in the stock market)

is there any truth behind this?

>>1258951
Of course.

>>1258951
Yes. Of course. Yes.

>>1258951
Yes. One of the purposes of science is to be able to predict an outcome of a given set of starting conditions by analyzing the existing interactions of a similar nature.

>>1258776
A Beautiful Mind is a good movie.

>>1258991
>>1258988
Bullshit, chaotic systems beyond a certain limit of complexity are outside reach of prediction.

>>1258998
notsureifsrs.png

>>1258999
What "limit" exactly? When does something become too complex to be predicted? It doesn't. And it's not like the stockmarket is an example of such a system anyway.

>>1259015
>What "limit" exactly?
Every chaotic system in the real world, basically.
Weather, turbulence and the stock market are only three examples.

And if you think the stock market is in fact not a chaotic system, you must be a fucking retard.
There's a lot of feedback and you have the human equation in the mix.

Believe me, it completely defies accurate prediction methods.

>>1259049
depends on the timescale.

I predict the stockmarket won't change.
(For the next 86 nanoseconds.)

Your god, where is he now?

>>1259049
Not what I'm sayin', man. You're not getting what I'm saying. Take population, for example. It can be modeled surprisingly well by graphs(pic related). Not perfectly, but well enough to make a prediction.

We can do the same thing for any system. Including the stock market.