Here is my post about Ironside. [link] now I'm wondering why reading that didn't bug me that much about Ironside, but I read a recent story about Lincoln Rhyme(from the movie The Bone Collector") and there was a section about how his recent surgery had improved his arms and hands that made me feel like I was going to strain my eyes rolling them. I guess because Jeffrey Deaver is really trying to be gritty and real and then there's, like, this experimental surgery like in a soap opera(Maybe he even got it done in Moldavia) I usually give shows a few episodes before deciding if I like them.

Elementary: I've never seen a TV show explain graduate-school level math, and get it pretty much correct like that before.

Since my math is not at that level I was wondering about that. Quite surprised to hear they got it mostly right, given the simpler stuff they get wrong.

I was wondering, too (Actually, about the math actually on the walls, but still). I enjoyed it enough to not regret staying up past my bedtime to watch it live

I was impressed by the simplicity of how they stated real world implications. I have very few plotlines batting around in my head, but the "this abstract sounding maths that pros wank to will have this impact on your life" seems to get pulled off so poorly so often.

Well, if you can prove that P = NP, it would mean that most existing encryption could be broken, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you could instantly crack any arbitrary computer. Also, it is far more likely that P ≠ NP, but that hasn't been proven, either.

if you can prove that P = NP, it would mean that most existing encryption could be broken

That's the part that impressed me with the transition from abstract to "why anyone might care". The rest of the plot details were random cracker magic, and as far as I was unconcerned just an indication that a master hacker was in the house.

Until P != NP, isn't either direction fair fodder for TV plots?

Until P != NP, isn't either direction fair fodder for TV plots?

Well, technically, yes, but if you ask mathematicians to bet on which one will turn out to be true, most will put their money on P ≠ NP.

If we start limiting fiction plots to what people bet would probably happen, how different the landscape would be.

I think that Person of Interest should stay in Procedurals. Although it now has Boxed Set elements, that's not how it started. Also, I think that it would be confusing to have the back and forth where we comment one place if it's a Machine thing and another if it's a procedural element.