Slashco
Bending Unit



« on: 09032003 21:17 »


I think Futurama has to take the #1 spot for including the most nerdy/esoteric stuff in its scripts. Like this one from Luck of the Fryrish (at the horse races): Announcer: Checking the electron microscope... And the winner is 3, in a quantum finish! Professor: No fair! You changed the outcome by observing it! (tears up ticket) I honestly don't know how many people they were expecting to get that. I'm pretty sure there are others as well.





Cube_166
Professor


P and NP for example. Now thats the nerdiest joke.






Killerfox
Professor


mhh well in AOI1 although it was parody of "Back to the Future: 2" when the Proffesor says:"It looks like the very fabric of the Spacetime coninum has ripped apart. THAT was nerdy








ShadowFox
Crustacean


For those with Season 2 DVDs, the one episode where Cohen explains the math term on the movie sign has to be one of the nerdiest things I have ever heard.







Beamer
DOOP Secretary


He said right before that it was in Luck of the Fryish. You even had the selection of text where he said the episode it was from in the part you quoted...






Lionel Hutz Esq
Bending Unit


Originally posted by AsylumFry: The Aleph ??? Plex? That was confusing, to say the least. Mostly to see what I remeber of this, and thanks to Issac Asimov, for explaining it to me: Alephnul (The first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, sub 0) equals standard infinity. In other words, all the counting numbers and rational numbers. 1, 12, 1/2, 23/45 etc. This is the smallest form of infinity, and is also symbolised by the sideways 8. Aleph1 equals the number of points in a line. Take a line, and while you can find a point equal to all the rational numbers and counting numbers, there are also points that cannot be represented by rational numbers. These are the irrationals, such as pi, e, and the square root of 2 (most roots, actually). I was a philosophy major, not a math major, so I won't go into the proof, but basically, there are more points in any line than all the counting numbers and rationals combined. Both are limitless, but Aleph1 is always bigger. To screw with your minds more. While never proven, Aleph2 would be an even larger infiity, possibly equal to all the curves in a plane. (I am twenty years out of date on this, if DXC or Keeler are hanging around, let me know if it is proven yet). For a similar reason as above, this set is always bigger than Aleph1. And, as far as I know, you can have Aleph1000 or anything. But I have to admit, my mind has problems with that. Any math majors who want to add to this, feel free.







[mArc]
Administrator
Liquid Emperor


I wanna try, too :P Hope I get it right Any set with the cardinality Aleph_0 can in theory be put on a list (given infitite time/paper/pencils, seeing that the list is gonna be infinitely long). So, you can come up with a strategy of putting them in a linear order. When I ask you "what's on #56", you have an answer and when I ask "where's this and that element out of the set", you have an answer. Also, you never have two elements on the same spot in the list. With Aleph_1, you can't find such a strategy. /isn't a math major but got enough math in informatics






canned eggs
Space Pope


Originally posted by [mArc]: Any set with the cardinality Aleph_0 can in theory be put on a list (given infitite time/paper/pencils, seeing that the list is gonna be infinitely long). So, you can come up with a strategy of putting them in a linear order. When I ask you "what's on #56", you have an answer and when I ask "where's this and that element out of the set", you have an answer. Also, you never have two elements on the same spot in the list.
With Aleph_1, you can't find such a strategy.
/isn't a math major but got enough math in informatics With c you can't find such a strategy, it remains to be proven whether this is true of aleph one. What this amounts to is: the real numbers are uncountable. Cantor used a "diagonalization argument" to prove this. Consider the reals between 0 and 1, represented as decimal numbers. Assume they can be arranged in a list. Build a new decimal as follows. Make the nth digit anything other than the nth digit of the nth number on the list. (you also have to avoid the digits 0 and 9). You will always construct a number that does not appear on the list. In other words, it is impossible to exhaustively list all the real numbers, even in theory. I'm not a math major either, but meh.






Cube_166
Professor


Originally posted by Lionel Hutz Esq: Alephnul (The first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, sub 0) equals standard infinity. In other words, all the counting numbers and rational numbers. 1, 12, 1/2, 23/45 etc. This is the smallest form of infinity, and is also symbolised by the sideways 8. Aleph1 equals the number of points in a line. Take a line, and while you can find a point equal to all the rational numbers and counting numbers, there are also points that cannot be represented by rational numbers. These are the irrationals, such as pi, e, and the square root of 2 (most roots, actually). I was a philosophy major, not a math major, so I won't go into the proof, but basically, there are more points in any line than all the counting numbers and rationals combined. Both are limitless, but Aleph1 is always bigger. To screw with your minds more. While never proven, Aleph2 would be an even larger infiity, possibly equal to all the curves in a plane. (I am twenty years out of date on this, if DXC or Keeler are hanging around, let me know if it is proven yet). For a similar reason as above, this set is always bigger than Aleph1. And, as far as I know, you can have Aleph1000 or anything. But I have to admit, my mind has problems with that.
My god! I can't believe that I understand that.






Teral
Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary


The Strong Force crazy glue and Grand Unified School District bus was pretty neat.





Mercapto
Professor


Scrödinger's KitKat Club always cracks me up.











Killerfox
Professor


mhhhh math & science nerds talking!!!! WOW well i like those two fields very mich but as i am only 15 i didnt understand everything, I like Math riddles, i dont stop until i gety it right!





j w wimpy
Delivery Boy


Originally posted by Lionel Hutz Esq: If anyone is interested in this, I highly recommend Asimov on Numbers. A good layman's introduction to the math jokes that make Futurama what it is. I recommend any book entitled "Asimov on...". I have five myself, including the chemistry, physics, numbers, astronomy tomes. The scene where Bender mentions that his and Flexo's serial numbers both can be expressed as sums of two cubes of course got me going. I wrote a little BASIC program and found one easily. I couldn't find the other until I realized that that you can cube negative numbers and get a negative (Duhhh...)







HoosierBot
Crustacean


The P and NP joke and the Alephnaught joke were things that were only in the background. I liked them, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty joke("no fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it" ) was so great because it was actually part of the script. When that episode was first aired I got a good laugh out of that joke, and then tried to explain it to my friends without any success.







Killerfox
Professor


mhhh Symposia i was going to look that word in the dictionary but.... im just too lazy.
why do you call it the P/NP?????






Smitty
Professor


Originally posted by Cube_166: P and NP for example. Now thats the nerdiest joke. Second. The extra one after it that was hidden made it even funnier.





