Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 January 1

= January 1 =

Istanbul's Ataturk Olympic Stadium scoreboard
Hello and best wishes for a happy new year to all Wikipedians. Not long ago, I made a request about the Ataturk Olympic Stadium in Istanbul. From the pictures I always saw the facility with only one scoreboard, located in the south corner. But seeing this image from Twitter I realise that it is as I thought, namely that another scoreboard can be seen above the north curve, which in all or most pictures of the stadium is not there. One example is Google; it always shows images of the stadium with only one scoreboard. And here's my question: how does the second scoreboard 'appear' during matches? Ignorantly speaking, it appears to "disappear." You can see, however, that the two scoreboards are not identical: the one located above the south curve seems to be even a bit bigger. Thank you very much to anyone who would like to reply, and again, happy New Year to you all. https://twitter.com/TFF_Org/status/999633209645256704/photo/2 93.41.97.54 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The best people to ask are those who manage the stadium. A link to its website is at the bottom of the article's infobox. If the answer is not on the website itself, it will surely have an email or postal address to which you could send an enquiry.
 * Two possibilities occur to me (though I am sure there are others): (1) The second scoreboard is retractable; (2) the pictures showing it are from TV broadcasts, and it is an image generated by CGI or some similar technique, just as some broadcasts of sporting events show large adverts on pitch surfaces or around motor racing circuits that are not really there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (If the twitter image link to photo/2 does not work, click here.) The two scoreboards seem rather different in size; the one at the north end (left side of the image) appears only half as wide and half as tall, and also positioned lower. The photo was taken during the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final. Perhaps the smaller scoreboard was temporarily installed just for that very special occasion. --Lambiam 23:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are also photos in which neither side has a scoreboard. --Lambiam 10:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Meaning of this scientific joke
A Physics professor is walking across campus, and runs into math professor. The physics professor has been doing an experiment, and has worked out an empirical equation that seems to explain his data, and asks the math professor to look at it. A week later, they meet again, and the math professor says the equation is invalid. By then, the physics professor has used his equation to predict the results of further experiments, and he is getting excellent results, so he asks the math professor to look again. Another week goes by, and they meet once more. The math professor tells the physics professor the equation does work, "But only in the trivial case where the numbers are real and positive."

What is the meaning/ funny element of this joke? Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 17:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, it made me laugh. The joke contrasts the experimental physicist who is interested in parameters that are both real and positive, with the mathematician who thinks that the equation is a bit too restrictive as it doesn't apply to negative or imaginary numbers. It's a case of the practical versus the theoretical, but humour is almost always difficult to explain. Mikenorton (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty much it. It's a case of theoretical scientists thinking too big when it's OK to think small. Occam's razor, in essence. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  20:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat lame, though, in that there is no reasonable interpretation of the concept of an equation being "invalid" or "working" that fits with the story. If the maths professor interprets the latter as that the equation is a theorem, such as $$x^{{-}1}=|x|^{{-}1}$$ (which only holds for real and positive values of $$x$$), it cannot be falsified by any conceivable experiment and has no explanatory power as a model, so the fact that it "works" is not good news for the physics professor. Using the more reasonable interpretation that the mathematical model fits the data, this cannot be judged without taking the data into account. No issue with numbers being complex can arise unless the experimental data had complex values to start with. In that case the necessary restriction to the trivial case even spells bad news for the physics professor. --Lambiam 23:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process. (E. B. White). Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This frog was brought in dead. The autopsy served to determine the cause of death. --Lambiam 11:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * :-) Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The function from the joke would also not work on this frog, as the frog is imaginary... Rmvandijk (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This brings up all sorts of conundra in epistemology, ontology, logic and/or meta-mathematics. The professors are Imaginary. So are their experiments, equations and dialogue. So is E.B. White's hypothetical dissection of an Imaginary or hypothetical frog mapped onto  the hypothetical explanation of a hypothetical, generalised joke. But E.B. White was undoubtedly Real *. One assumes that the quotation is an accurate, authentic and direct one, which would make it Real. But even it if were apocryphal, someone Real said or wrote it — and even (hypothetically or counter-factually) if this were not so (i.e., no one said or wrote it), the remark would have value and be in that sense Real.
 * ¶ So, (like the square of the square root of -1) is it possible, in one sense at least, for a Real conclusion to come from two or more Imaginary beings or situations?
 * I will leave it to far younger, far wiser, far more imaginative minds than my own to discourse on the reality of Stuart Little or the spider in Charlotte's Web.
 * ¶ Am I missing something (other than my brain and common sense) here ? Perplexedly, —— Shakescene (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, supposing that anyone asks you, this conversation never happened. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) ) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just as a side note (since we've already killed the joke), complex analysis and the use of imaginary numbers are fantastically useful mathematics for all sorts of science; the use of imaginary numbers is a great way to model rotations in two dimensions, and quaternions (4-dimensional numbers with three imaginary parts) are used to model rotations in three dimensions. The notion that imaginary numbers are esoteric and not really relevant to anyone except mathematicians hasn't been true for centuries.  -- Jayron 32 12:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just look at the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. --Lambiam 18:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even beyond that, most computer animation uses imaginary numbers to manage rotations in three dimensions (Quaternions). -- Jayron 32 14:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Much of this section (and other discussions elsewhere) rely on the NAME of the complex part being "imaginary". Had it been named - say "planar" instead, most of the jokes and confusion disappear and just become run of the mill "maths is hard" thinking. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All numbers are imaginary, but some are more imaginary than others. --Lambiam 23:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)