Talk:Pi (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spoilers

Jesus cant we have some spoilers? -Steve

See the new Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline. –Pomte 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when are titles spelled using characters instead of letters?

It's Pi, so get over it.] (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you telling to get over it? The film's name is often spelt simply with the character. The editors of Wikipedia didn't decide to do that, the director did. --DearPrudence (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Isn't the movie called 'π' not 'Pi'? Shouldn't the title of the page reflect this?

--- π

I don't see nice greek letter for pi. I am using Windows XP and IE6+service pack 1. Do I need install language pack or something? I can see Japanese, Chinese, Korean and most of other's including Arabic ones characters -- Taku 04:19 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

That's very peculiar. I understood the whole point of the HTML coding to be to make it possible for all character sets to see. Do you see: é - an e with an accute accent? - Montréalais

Yes. Oh, maybe fonts? since I am using Arial. Anyway I think this is just my problem on my PC. If anyone else has no problem, it is not a problem. -- Taku 04:31 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

My guess was right. Once I changed the font to Comic Sans MS, I got nice pi letter. -- Taku 04:45 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

The ampersand is getting changed to &, so the title of the page becomes an ugly π. I wonder if we can escape the unruly character. --Goblin 05:57, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

It seems it can't be done. The page for π redirects to Pi, so I guess the movie article should be redirected to Pi (movie). --Goblin 06:01, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Due to UTF-8 support, the old [[π]] redirect is no longer accessible; attemps to link to it (see example in comment directly above) go to [[Π]] instead (due to Wiki upper-casing-first-letter rules), and that is linked to Pi (letter). Noel (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought this used to work. I guess not. Anyway, I can't tell my true story/joke in the article space so I'll tell it here. My friend calls up Blockbuster to see if they have π in stock. The girl who answers the phone asks him how to spell π and he responds "pi". anthony 警告 18:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now that we have UTF-8 support, it would be possible to move this page to π (movie) if y'all want. Noel (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Pi (film) was much better. Things are now needlessly complicated—renaming it to the greek letter hasn't made the article name truer to the real film title because of WikiMedia's automatic capitalization. We now have to put up a complicated notice clarifying that it's π and not Π. I think the article name should be put back to Pi (film), then simply state "Pi or π is a film..." instead of using Template:wrongtitle at all. —jiy (talk) 16:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I, agreeing with jiy, moved the page back to Pi (film). I feel that this is the best solution at this time. If/when we become able to have titles start with lowercase letters, Greek or otherwise, move it back to π (film), and only then. I have never seen the numerical constant "3.14159265..." represented by Π (uppercase "pi"). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed back to Pi (film). Currently, the article is difficult to search for... not to mention the capitalization issue above. Jim keller (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

maxwell

i deleted the following text: "is much in the tradition of James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations unified the description of electricity and magnetism, in the process predicting that light is an electromagnetic wave." I disagree with the claim that unification of magnetism and electricity is in any way similar in spirit to the study of patterns in nonlinear dynamics. the latter sounds much more like chaos theory to me. Lethe

Correction to one of the trivia items

The trivia section has a tidbit referring to Sol's fish, Icarus, and states that Sol's name is a reference to the son. However, I am pretty sure that Sol is short for Solomon, a Hebrew name. 158.106.50.3 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Does anyone think there should be trivia on the movie here? There are a few little funfacts that can be found. For instance, listen to the little girl make up numbers to have Max calculate. Some of them are most likely referenced off of important numbers in mathematics. The final question she asks him is about 748 divided by 238 which is approximately 3.14, or a rounded off definition of pi.

Dan Winter?

Is it possible that somebody may add to this article a brief reference and link to Daniel Winter, who was surely the basis of some of Max Cohen's character? If you are unsure about the reference, Dan Winter was responsible for his interesting theory on the developement of the origins of the hebrew flame "aleph bet" and was subsequently harassed and sued by Stanley N. Tenen. Much more information is found online that goes into his research using the golden mean (also used in Pi, the movie), books on his theories/findings on said subject, and his fleeing America due to court costs from the aforementioned legal battle. Much of the information on his findings and beliefs, originally deriving from his site www.danwinter.com, are no longer available as the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered it shut down due to his being wanted. Some further information is available at http://spirals.eternite.com/ Once again, I do not mean to suggest this movie is based off of him per se, but it seems quite evident it is heavily influenced on many of his findings.

On trivia in the movie Pi

Regarding the 748 divided by 238 part of the movie, I don't think that should be included since there is a 3 digit fraction which approximates pi a lot better (i.e. 355 divided by 113). If the director was trying to get a small fraction that approximates pi, he did a poor job since this fraction is well known. This fraction could be obtained very quickly using continued fractions. Or one could simply take the naive approach and have the computer iteratively print out pi * 2, pi * 3, ... up to pi * 1000 and see which ones are close to an integer.

Perhaps some people here who have seen the movie would be interested to know that the 216 digit number in the movie is:

941432434315126593210548723 904868285129134748760276719 592346023858295830472501652 325259296925727655364363462 929184012012643147546329450 127847264841075622347896267 285928582953475027722626464 56217613984829519475412398501

Aren't those 218 digits?

Looks like it is 218 digits. I think I was the one that put that number up, but I deleted the original file I had, so I can't really say anything about it anymore. If I ever watch the movie again, I'll be sure to write it down. - Tekemperor 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't played with this number so I don't know if the writer of the film actually got it from anywhere (could be part of the Fibonacci sequence or just a number the writer picked randomly). I would advise anyone looking into this to have plenty of headache medication on hand.

Also, since the movie is dealing with biblical references, the Number of the Beast is 666, and 6 * 6 * 6 = 216 -- I'm pretty sure that was done on purpose.--SQB

616 is the number of the beast, not 666

Quoth the Christian Bible: "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six" Last time I checked, 'score' was 20. Multiply by 3. 60. Add to 606. 666. Oh, and sign your posts
Centrisian 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

616 appears to predate 666 as the number by approximately a century, 666 just became more popular later on 72.211.128.62 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the creators would recognize 666 as the number of the beast before 616. 666 is much more widely recognized. If it was intentional.70.144.83.14 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical goofs?

When the movie "claim[s] that the kabbalists could recite the phonetic equivalents of all 216-digit numbers in only two thousand years" it is Max doing the claiming. I think Max was trying to make a point that they "lost" the number because they had lost the meaning, the value. I'm also going to add the goof about the hebrew number system.

Sure he was saying that they'd lost the meaning. But he did accuse them of reciting all the numbers, an obvious impossibility, and it was only by doing so that he accused them of having lost the meaning. The point is that if they tried all the numbers, they must have tried the right one, but still failed to achieve anything, precisely because it was the meaning of the number that was important. The claim is still a goof. You could argue that it was allowed because Max was plainly cracking up by that point and can't be expected to get these things right, but the Rabbi makes no sign that he denies it. The goof stands. 193.195.0.102 23:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If by by 'obvious impossibility' you're alluding to the fact that it would take more than two thousand years to recite them all, then yeah. It would really take well more than a googol-squared times longer than the age of the universe to simply recite them all, let alone appreciate any particular meaning of any of them. 72.211.128.62 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

plot

Spoiler warning ? they nothing of his quest and his results...His drill through the head etc.. Can anyone complete this ? The Procrastinator 01:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Weasel Words with Go Removed

As per Wikipedia's guide on weasel words, I replaced the phrase "yet many consider [Go] more challenging than chess" with "[Go] features a very simple set of rules that results in an extremely complex game strategy." I doubt that 'many' would even know what Go is.  :( While it is easy to show that Go is more complex than Chess in several regards, a digression into Go's complexity does not seem warranted for this article. Lets leave that discussion for the Go page.

--Dasunt 21:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh? Not many that knows what go is? I'm certain most mathematicians know what Go is... And LOTS of people in china, japan etc, you're just being ignorant thinking that USA is the only place in the world. 81.226.215.82 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And you seemed to miss to miss the point. It wasn't as much that Go is unknown, more that the statement made is largely unverifiable. And yes, this is the English wikipedia so it does not have to be very Asian-centricKurasuke 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Exodus 14: 19-21

I checked the verses (Today's English Version) and could find nothing about the Seschamphorus. Can we add an explanation, a quotation of the verses, or somply delete it?

The three verses are used in the following algorithm: The 216 Letter Name of God is the composition of three verses of 72 letters each in Exodus. The Name composes into 72 triplets by taking the first letter of the first verse, the last letter of the second verse, and the first letter of third verse. The next triplet consists of the second letter of the first verse, the second to last letter of the second verse and the second letter of the third verse. We proceed this way until we form all 72 triplets. (From one of the many descriptions found on the web.) Jclerman 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

ants!

Max sees ants. In the korean movie "Oldboy", the theory is presented that when people are sufficiently lonley they start seeing ants (perhaps because ants work together). I wonder if there are other movies (or studies) in which this motive appears... -Ados 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

nothing was real?

i watched this recently and noticed something peculiar. remember the part where he grabs the newspaper from the old man and the stock predictions were correct? well it's the same old man that disappears throughout the movie. so maybe the old man isn't real? the newspaper isn't real? the predictions aren't real? nothing in the movie actually occurs? just a thought, though i'm fairly convinced that was done intentionally. --P3on 17:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Irony?

The long decimal expansion of π at the beginning of the film is in fact incorrect:

3.1415926535897... (actual digits)

3.1415926526312... (film)

Deliberate mistake on the part of the film-makers? 82.12.105.46 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot is misinterpreted this is the real plot (super spoiler warning)

My take on the real plot of the movie is this: (1) a priestly class recited the name of god in the temple in pre-roman israel. If the priest was pure he lived. If the priest was impure he died. COmputers designed by Sol and Max would search for the number. When they found the number they became conscious and died (because they were impure). The symbol is the computers get bugs. The last thing computers do is print out the number. When Sol encountered teh number for the first time he had a stroke. After his confrontation with Max, Sol tried to recite the number again but was judged impure and died. Finally Max, who is a Cohen, a descendent of the priestly class, discovers and memorizes the number. He is confronted by the rabbi who tells hime the story of the priests living and dying. Max claims his ability to live while understanding the number is proof he is chosen as priest. His second or third to last seizure includes the visiion that he sees his own brain in the sink with bugs. This indicates the number is killing him. Max decides to kill himself and destroy the number. In conclusion the fact that he is a mathematician is incidental. The movie is Kabbalist. Mrdthree 06:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, I believe this is open to interpretation, however I think that parts of this would not go a miss in the article, not to replace the "obvious" plot tho. T boyd 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

Obviously the rabbis would not have written translated *every* 216 digit number, just the ones that they found in nature or that popped up at them in other ways. All he is saying is exactly what Sol said, that if they were looking for 216 digit numbers they would see them to be important, baselessly. I vote remove that "goof" T boyd 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand this following statement:

• "The film also shows the character Max trying to work out a connection between Pi and the supposedly incredibly complex 216-digit number"

Just what number is that? And what makes it so "incredibly complex"? I guess whoever wrote such statement will next claim to have invented a new class of complex numbers, that is, the class of incredibly complex numbers. I've affixed a tag.

--AVM 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Goof: Every Number Is In Pi?

The fact that the 216-digit number occurs in pi appears to surprise people. Since pi is irrational and thus does not repeat, doesn't every number occur in pi eventually? This would make the "surprise" a tautology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.31.229.4 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

It is quite late to answer this question, but still ... The answer is no, pi being irrational does not imply that every number occurs in its decimal expansion. Take the number 0.11010010001000010000010000001... for example. It is not periodic (no digit sequence repeats), hence it is irrational, but clearly "most" numbers never appear in it. For pi, no one knows up to now whether any number occurs, although I think most mathematicians are convinced it is "yes". Certainly you are right if you think that it is no big surprise to find any particular number - have a look at http://www.angio.net/pi/piquery and try to find your birthday! - Momotaro 22:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The ending is ambiguous

"Later, Max sits on a park bench and is unable to perform complex mental calculation. He observes the trees blowing in the breeze, at peace."

When I watched the ending, I felt that he's not necessarily unable to perform complex mental calculations, rather he just doesn't care anymore to try and worry about it. Perhaps this line should be changed? JeffreyGomez 23:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. –Pomte 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive addition in Production secrion

This edit added a lot of text which, while interesting, is unsourced and contradicts the previous info (including the infobox). At the very least, the added text needs a heavy-handed cleanup and some sourcing. Another option would be to remove it entirely, if it's bogus. Any thoughts? Muad (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pi DVD.jpg

Image:Pi DVD.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

headaches?

I got the idea, though that's of course unverifiable, that the headaches Max suffered from were specifically supposed to be cluster headaches. Can anyone with more information confirm this? I'd like to be bold and change it, but I simply don't know enough. It seems to have a lot in common - the lack of cure (heh, short of drilling a hole in your skull I guess; I'd like to see a paper on that!), the total incapacitation and agony that seems to go well past that of the simple [migraine]...Though I haven't heard of cluster headaches pretty much turning your life into Eraserhead, I must concede. Malenkylizards (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a mention of cluster headaches in the plot section. After reading the Wikipedia article on cluster headaches (which has been significantly updated/revised since I last looked), it seemed worth mentioning that this type of headache was most likely the inspiration for Max's affliction.

Jim keller (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Film goofs

In 'Pi', Max mentions that Pythagoras was from Athens.... that is false... Pythagoras and his direct followers were based in Croton, an ancient Greek city located in the modern-day Italian peninsula. --59.93.213.197 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PRODUCTION

This section was clearly written by a producer on the film Scott Vogel. His name occurs 20 times more than the artists normally credited with the movie. This is the work of someone who is clearly not that involved in the making of the film. None of his claims are in anyway documented by any source. I feel that his comments should be removed until they are substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown2142 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Max's playing style and board position

I noticed the following statement was removed from the article because it looks like original research:

From the way Max holds the Go stones and the game position, it is obvious that Max is a beginner, while Sol is a more experienced player.

Any slightly experienced go player can tell you that the way Max holds the stones suggests he is a beginner. Take a look at the traditional way of holding the stones here and here.
I am a intermediately strong go player (3kyu, see Go ranks and ratings) but any above-beginner player can clearly see that the move Max makes here is a beginner's move. Although the position shown is objective, I can see how any interpretation of it is subjective. There are no sources that analyze this specific game position, so it is hard to support this with realiable sources. I have asked some of the good people at Wikiproject Go to help us with this.
I have also found that most of the moves played are unrealistic (since Sol makes some useless moves as well). Take a loot at this article at Sensei's Library which states that

most of the moves played are unrealistic

Regards, --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like original research, it is original research. I completely understand the point you are trying to make, and sympathize with you, but it's still your own research. I also understand the point about finding a third-party source to confirm (maybe there's an in-depth movie review somewhere that touches on it?), but I am interested to see how it's resolved at WP:WPGO. I'm pretty open to a solution, since you have an obvious genuine interest in improving this, and to be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to invoking WP:IAR in the meantime due to the situation, if you want to revert back. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is another one of the broken aspects of wikipedia. The inability to add trivially obvious statements of obvious benefit to the article. Short of publishing a Go Journal article on the subject there seems little way to circumvent the Original Research point. However it is possible to redraft the text. Max plays the Go stones as a beginner would, while Sol plays the Go stones in a the traditional fashion. This is in part subject specific common knowledge and doesn't need a citation, and in part obviously verifiable by watching the film.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Max and Sol are fictional characters, so if you want to conclude anything about their go skill, you will have to ask the script writer or director or someone like that. The way Max holds his go stones (like a beginner, as shown above) may be intentional (i.e. the director told him to hold the stones like that in order to show that he is a beginner), or it may be coincidence (i.e. the actor playing the character Max did not know any better). The official move site has a page on this at http://www.pithemovie.com/go.html, where they claim: "Both actors spent many hours with the Brooklyn Go Club learning the fundamental rules and the complex etiquette of the game to bring an accurate portrayal to the film.. From which we can see that the actors did not know how to play, prior to filming this movie, and the intention of the director was to give an "accurate portrayal", meaning that the characters Sol and Max are meant to appear as at least somewhat experienced players. The move that Max makes in the above example [1] is not just a beginners move. It is complete nonsense. Given the position on the rest of the board, there is no way that a player with enough skill to produce that position would play this move. As such, I think it is obvious that the move made is random, made for the purpose of filming the characters in play, rather that for the purpose of making a reasonable move. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see we are all trying to make this a better article. It's obvious that the writer's intention was to portray both Max and Sol as at least mildly experienced players. The nonsensical moves and Max's playing technique is clearly a movie blooper of some sort. I suggest the following statement be inserted:

Although the board position suggests both players are mildly experienced, most of the moves played by the actors are nonsensical and the way Max holds the go stones suggests he is a beginner.

please do any necessary modifications to the statement. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the edits made by HermanHiddema and although no reliable sources can be found for some of the statements, it is obvious to any experienced player that some of the moves are random. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)