# Math in Good Will Hunting **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 25, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563 "2005-08-25T14:22:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/21 "2005-08-27T19:51:51Z")
> [@lorinada](#): > > I belong to a forum for type 1 diabetics. One time the discussion turned to the ridiculously inaccurate way IDDm (type 1 diabetes) and the people who have it are portrayed in such movies as “Con Air” and “The Panic Room”. Up until that point we didn’t realize that one of our members was actually a consultant hired often by script writers and directors to add some authentication to their projects that involved IDDM. She affirmed that, even though they paid her good money to give her advice on the errors in the script, she was universally ignored. “Drama” was better than “facts”, even when they could have easily gone hand in hand. It was a constant msytery to her as to why they even hired her. I heard the same thing from a well-known forensic scientist. He was invited to Hollywood to consult on the television show Quincy. He said they ignored everything they were told. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/22 "2005-08-28T02:35:37Z")
> [@Big Whistle](#): > > Get real. The number of people who could discern the issue as a percentage of the population watching the movie is so small as to be insignificant. THAT is why the producers don’t bother with the issue. Few people watching a period piece are aware that a particular hairstyle, hat, purse, waistcoat, carriage, rifle, tobacco brand, political movement, architecture, etc etc etc is historically appropriate, but **some** producers do give a damn. Good Will Hunting doesn’t fall within this genre, but getting things right would have been so easy with no downside. Why produce a math-themed show that math experts chortle at? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/23 "2005-08-28T03:30:43Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > Few people watching a period piece are aware that a particular hairstyle, hat, purse, waistcoat, carriage, rifle, tobacco brand, political movement, architecture, etc etc etc is historically appropriate, but **some** producers do give a damn. Good Will Hunting doesn’t fall within this genre, but getting things right would have been so easy with no downside. Why produce a math-themed show that math experts chortle at? Good Will Hunting isn’t “math-themed.” The character is supposed to be skilled at math and he works a bit for a math professor, but A) It’s not about math and math is not a major thematic element, and B) It’s extremely well established that Will Hunting is not just a skilled mathematician; he’s good at almost anything academic. We see him display uncommon brilliance at organic chemistry, and his command of American history and law are almost uncanny. You can’t even say he’s just a math whiz. The reason they didn’t bother to get the math right is that it simply doesn’t matter. The film is about men getting over their emotional problems. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/24 "2005-08-28T11:19:26Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > One has to wonder why. WIth an ~ $80 million film, why not go the extra inch, shell out $5,000 and get a math professor/doctoral student to generate suitably impressive-looking computations that are also suitably correct. Doing so would have taken about two hours and given the film a bit more credibility. **Dewey Finn** probably explained it–they probably _did_ have a real mathematician on set (they work cheap), but their suggestions were … unaesthetic ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Whistle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Big\_Whistle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Whistle)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/25 "2005-08-28T13:34:20Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > Few people watching a period piece are aware that a particular hairstyle, hat, purse, waistcoat, carriage, rifle, tobacco brand, political movement, architecture, etc etc etc is historically appropriate, but **some** producers do give a damn. Good Will Hunting doesn’t fall within this genre, but getting things right would have been so easy with no downside. Why produce a math-themed show that math experts chortle at? I’m not attempting to support the producers for failing to get it right. I was responding to your attempt to assert that the reason they should get it right was the hordes of math-savvy people who would notice if they got it wrong. And, for what it is worth, almost no “period piece” gets all the aspects of the time correct: costume, architecture, language, weapons, etc. Usually, the reason boils down to one of three things: lack of care, lack of budget, or different expectations among the audience. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/26 "2005-08-28T14:04:50Z")
> [@lorinada](#): > > Up until that point we didn’t realize that one of our members was actually a consultant hired often by script writers and directors to add some authentication to their projects that involved IDDM. She affirmed that, even though they paid her good money to give her advice on the errors in the script, she was universally ignored. “Drama” was better than “facts”, even when they could have easily gone hand in hand. It was a constant msytery to her as to why they even hired her. Then there’s the case of Kathleen Coleman, the Harvard professor hired as historical consultant on _Gladiator_, a stint that produced [this rant](http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/mailing_lists/CLA-L/2000/05/0926.php) from her afterwards. Personally, I suspect she set her hopes way too high at the start. In the one case where I’ve tangentially known someone - a grad student in theoretical physics - who acted as consultant on a Hollywood picture, the makers just wanted some vaguely scientificy formulae and he was quite happy to take their cash for giving them just that. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/27 "2005-08-28T15:19:12Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > You don’t think 1980-era computers would process commands written in full English sentences, and respond in kind? Especially a computer (an IMSAI 8080) with a spacious 256 bytes of RAM? Just for the nitpick record, and in the interest of accuracy – this thread is about that, right? – my IMSAI 8080 could address 64K (16 bits) of RAM. Although that left no address room for ROM or addressable I/O, and the 64K board alone cost $2700. But you didn’t have to solder it or insert the chips like the older, 1, 4, 8, and 16K boards. Ah, memories. ---
**Author:** ![carterba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@carterba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carterba)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/28 "2005-08-28T18:13:51Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > Then there’s the case of Kathleen Coleman, the Harvard professor hired as historical consultant on _Gladiator_, a stint that produced [this rant](http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/mailing_lists/CLA-L/2000/05/0926.php) from her afterwards. > Personally, I suspect she set her hopes way too high at the start. In the one case where I’ve tangentially known someone - a grad student in theoretical physics - who acted as consultant on a Hollywood picture, the makers just wanted some vaguely scientificy formulae and he was quite happy to take their cash for giving them just that. I think she kind of has a point. Her name is attached to a work that’s full of historical errors. The average person won’t know who she is or what the errors are, so in that respect it doesn’t matter, but the people she sees at the Ancient Rome research conferences or whatever will. From her perspective, her name is attached to a shoddy piece of work, and that will hurt her academic reputation, despite the fact that she did extensive research for the film. On the other hand, she does seem to have assumed that the filmmakers wanted to produce an actual historical documentary, which is a bit naive to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/29 "2005-08-29T00:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > On the other hand, she does seem to have assumed that the filmmakers wanted to produce an actual historical documentary, which is a bit naive to say the least. From vaious statements I’ve seen over the years, consults and so forth seem to have a _very_ self-centered (well, not exactly, but you get the idea) view of historical movies. If it’s not a textbook rendition, it sucks. Practical problems don’t seem to impact on them. Heck, Braveheart’s batle scenes were supposed to be quite different in some respects, but proved impossible to film. The battles of the movie were in some cases going to take place in a wholly different (and more historical) place than it ultimately was. But rain, expense, and so on meant that Gibson moved productions at the last minute. Were the histroian blabers thankful that a minor but fascinating episode in Scottish history got so much play in a dramatic sense? No, it was all whine, whine, whine that the fanciful drama was… a fanciful drama. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/30 "2005-09-08T11:34:43Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > I think you’re wrong. My guess is that many, many mathematically savvy movie goers worldwide cringed at these cheesy movie segments and also think that many directors and screenwriters have enough pride that they want to get things reasonably correct. Maybe this film was the exception, but Hollywood often goes to incredible pains to replicate costumes, set designs, accents, etc. True, these are usually period pieces, but since the film in question tangentially deals with mathematics, why not spend a few grand and get things right? It would have been easy to do and would give the movie more authenticity. Sorry to burst your bubble, but many people do care about such things. No, Rickjay is correct. %99.99 of the population does not care about the various minutia of continuity errors and historical accuracy that some film geeks seem to find so important. And of those people who do actually notice those things, most of the time it is just an amusing observation, not something that detracts from their enjoyment of the movie. I always just assumed that the math on most movie blackboards was gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![StuffLikeThatThere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc8723/32.png) [@StuffLikeThatThere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StuffLikeThatThere)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/31 "2005-09-08T12:35:39Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > %99.99 of the population does not care about the various minutia of continuity errors and historical accuracy that some film geeks seem to find so important. And of those people who do actually notice those things, most of the time it is just an amusing observation, not something that detracts from their enjoyment of the movie. In a slightly different slant on the same topic, my husband was a dairy farmer for 23 years, and knows a great deal about modern dairy animals. He has also done substantial research into older breeds of dairy and beef cattle, because it interests him. Every time a cow appears in a movie set before, say, 1960, he is deeply grieved. They invariably use modern dairy animals (the BBC’s production of James Herriot’s vet stories are a notable exception), which are instantly recognizable to the Man on the Street, but don’t really look like the cattle that would have been present in England in the 1930s or the US at the turn of the century. _Treatise on recent breeding for specific traits deleted._ No one else I have met has ever noticed this. Ever. (Except me, now.) The percentage of people that would notice is very small, and the percentage that would care is even smaller. Given those facts, if a producer can film on a farm 10 miles away using modern Holstein cattle, or research and procure a heritage Devon herd at great expense and trouble, what’s he going to do? Use the Holsteins, if he has any brains at all. I’d say the same thing applies to the math. Yeah, they could find someone who could give them the appropriate stuff to fling on the blackboard, but really, how many people notice? Almost none. Worth it? Probably not. Of course, as a former software jockey, the stuff they do with computers drives me crazy. THAT, they should fix. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/32 "2005-09-08T13:13:50Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > I heard the same thing from a well-known forensic scientist. He was invited to Hollywood to consult on the television show Quincy. He said they ignored everything they were told. Except, apparently, the term ‘Subdural Haematoma’ - there was one of these in every episode. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/33 "2005-09-08T16:13:23Z")
> [@StuffLikeThatThere](#): > > I’d say the same thing applies to the math. Yeah, they could find someone who could give them the appropriate stuff to fling on the blackboard, but really, how many people notice? Almost none. Worth it? Probably not. The cost to get a grad student to contribute during production is minimal. They spend at least that much shopping productions to mathematicians after the fact[1]. Having accurate mathematics in a production which involves mathematics will often create a cachet among mathematicians, which I’m willing to bet will outweigh the minimal cost to tweak the production. As an example, _It’s My Turn_ is still well-known among mathematicians for the opening scene (the only part that directly involves mathematics) which proves the Snake Lemma so well that some homological algebra texts actually refer to the movie rather than restate the proof. [1] Case in point: _NUMB3RS_ sent our department – and many others – the full first season last September to get our comments. Why they didn’t ask someone to keep them honest _before_ shooting the show I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/34 "2005-09-08T16:18:50Z")
> [@StuffLikeThatThere](#): > > I’d say the same thing applies to the math. Yeah, they could find someone who could give them the appropriate stuff to fling on the blackboard, but really, how many people notice? Almost none. Worth it? Probably not. I still think that there are math geeks out there who would _pay_ to do this. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![StuffLikeThatThere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc8723/32.png) [@StuffLikeThatThere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StuffLikeThatThere)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/35 "2005-09-08T18:21:30Z")
Mathochist and Mentock, I bow to your superior knowledge of math and the amounts for which math grad students are willing to work. If it’s anything like what I was willing to work for as an undergrad, I feel for them. 🙂 I’m sure you’re right and it wouldn’t actually be that hard to get the math right. Movies, though, mostly play to a common denominator. They just want to have something on the screen that people will register as “pastoral scene with cows” or “math I can’t hope to understand.” Mostly, that’s what they get, and I suspect they don’t really care if it’s correct. Given that Dopers are MUCH smarter than the population at large 😃 , and only a few Dopers care, I’m betting the percentage of people that know and care is so small as to be statistically insignificant. I think what the participants of this thread would like (me, too) is to make people care. Sadly, I don’t think we can. At least not without those cool mind-ray thingies I saw in that one movie … ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/36 "2005-09-08T18:35:59Z")
But they _should_ care, damnit! Don’t the filmmakers take enough pride in their work to at least _try_ to get the details right? I guess the answer, in general, is no. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/37 "2005-09-08T20:10:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Given those facts, if a producer can film on a farm 10 miles away using modern Holstein cattle, or research and procure a heritage Devon herd at great expense and trouble, what’s he going to do? Use the Holsteins, if he has any brains at all. This example is, if anything, even more extreme. Before he made that decision, the producer would have to know that there was a difference between modern cows and historical cows in the first place. I consider myself relatively well-educated, and I do know the first and maybe second thing about farming (but not the third, fourth, or fifth), and I didn’t know that until just now. On the other hand, I would expect even the most Hollywoodized producer to know that there’s a difference between correct math and wrong math, and that some small portion of his audience can tell the difference. Incidentally, **Mathochist** , what’s the Snake Lemma? (A statement of it will suffice; this is probably not the place for a proof). ---
**Author:** ![Tenar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@Tenar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/38 "2005-09-09T01:02:38Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Except, apparently, the term ‘Subdural Haematoma’ - there was one of these in every episode. Au contraire. I think you’ll find that it was either \*\*Marcus Welby \*\* or \*\*Dr. Kildare \*\* that was enamored of the subdural haematoma. In fact, my father used to joke about that fact when I was a kid, long before **Quincy** went on the air. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/39 "2005-09-09T01:26:38Z")
> [@Mathochist](#): > > Basically, forget the math in that movie because “math” was a last-minute thing anyhow. It was supposed to be physics, but they thought that more people in the audience would find mathematics alien and strange than physics. I thought it was supposed to be encryption? I seem to remember the script that Affleck & Damon wrote being wildly different than the movie that was filmed, which confused me as to why they won an Oscar for it. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563/40 "2005-09-09T01:50:16Z")
I think they realised during shooting that graph theory was more photogenic than encryption. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/math-in-good-will-hunting/318563.md?page=3)