Derek Jacobi - Breaking the code *Mathematics*
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Join SDJ fans at / sirderekjacobi !!
Based on Andrew Hodges' book and Hugh Whitemore's play, this movie analizes the figure of the English mathematician Alan Turing, one of the inventors of the digital computer and of the key figures in the breaking of the Enigma code, used by the Germans to send secret orders to their U-boats in World War II.
This scene has been cut off from American release, can't understand why...
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED
SDJ Fanforum
forums.delphifo...
Did he do that in one take??? If he did....that's some of the best acting I've ever seen.
This man is smashing! I can never get enough of this man's talent. Thank you!
This piece is simply stunning!! For the most part this was done in a single take and the clarity of the script is supreme! I'm no mathamatician any more than I can speak French - but in listening to this piece I'm quite prepared to believe I can follow the logic just as I might recognise certain characters in 'Le Figaro' and believe I might follow the journalist! I saw this programme when it was broadcast - one of the best programmes I ever watched!!
Yeah Sir Jacobi is a great actor. I remember reading an interview and Alice Krige (one of the greatest actresses in her own right) was describing her experience working with him right out of school and how prepared and skilled he was...
Probably because he himself is so passionate about what he's saying. There's also snippets of what he's saying here that are fascinating thinking.
Of course, while the video probably accurately reflects the way Turing or someone like him would speak...gifted people have a habit of overcomplicating things.
Alan is the true bred cyberpunk , had a great idea for the ultimate equation solving machine , awesome that he also broke the engima code , a big thanks for the computer Alan :)
Oh, I was in London last friday for the same reason...great play, great cast, wonderful SDJ...he's such talented and humble!
Fantastic! I love the SINGLE TAKE in the middle of the clip - no cuts, no edits - Jacobi just KEEPS GOING in one shot, like the Energizer bunny! Beautiful acting...
How does he do that??? HOW??? I cannot understand a thing what he says, and yet, he is mesmerising!!! Sir Derek you are a magician. And you Rosa are a goodess, thanx so much for sharing!
The vocal coloring is on another level.
On comparable numbers with an application to the ent schidung problem.
In general terms its about "right and wrong ".
It's a technical paper in mathematical logic per se, but it's also about the difficulty of telling right from wrong.
You see, people think that in mathematics we always know what is right and wrong, not so! Not anymore. It's a problem that's occupied mathematics for 40 or 50 years. How do you tell right from wrong?
You k, Bertrand Russell wrote a book on the subject called Mathimatica Principia. His idea was to break down all mathematical concepts and arguments into little pieces and then show that they could be derived from pure logic. Well, it didn't quite work out that way. And after many years of intensive work, all he was able to do was to show that it's terribly difficult to do anything of the kind. But it was an important book, and influential. It influenced both David Gilbert and Kurt goedel. It's rather like what physicists call "splitting the atom", as analysing the physical atom has led to a discovery of a new kind of physics, so, the attempt to analyse these "mathematical atoms" has led to a new kind of mathematics.
David Hilbert took the whole thing a stage further...
But Hilbert looked at the problem from a completely different angle. He said " If we are to have any fundamental system for mathematics", like the one Russrll was trying to work out, that it must satisfy three basic requirements, [consistency], [completeness] and [decidability].
Now, consistency means that you will never get a contradiction in your own system. In other words, you will never be able to follow your rules and end up showing that 2 and 2 make 5.
Completeness means that, if any statement is true, there must be some way of proving it. If by using the rules of your system, and;
Decidability means that there must exist some method, some definite procedure or test which can be applied to any given mathematical assertion and which will decide whether or not that assertion is provable. Now Hilbert, thought this a perfectly reasonable set of requirements to impose, but within a few years Kurt geodel showed that no system for mathematics could be both consistent and complete. He did this by constructing a mathematical assertion that said in effect "this assertion cannot be proven". Classic paradox.
Well, either it can or it can't. If it can be proven, then we have a contradictiom and the system is inconsistent. If it cannot be proven then the assertion is true. But it can't be proven which means that the system is incomplete. Thus, mathematics is either inconsistent or its incomplete...
But, the question of decidability was still unsettled. Now, Hibbert, as I said had told us that there should be one single, clearly defined method for deciding whether or not mathematical assertions were provable and the decision problem, he called it, the en scieding problem.
No in my book on comparable numbers I wanted to show that no one method can work for all questions. Solving mathematical problems requires an infinite supply of new ideas. Well, it's one thing to make such a claim. It was a monumental task to prove it. I needed to examine the provability of mathematical assertions past, present and future, well, I mean, how on earth was such a thing to be done. Eventually, one word gave me clue.
People had been talking about a mechanical process, a process that could be applied mechanically to solving mathematical problems. Without requiring any human intervention or ingenuity. Machine!!!
That was the crucial word. I conceived the idea of a machine a Turning machine which will be able to scan mathematical symbols, it would read them, if you like, it would read a mathematical assertion and then arrive at a verdict as to whether or not that assertion were provable and with this concept I was able to show that Hibbert was wrong. My idea worked.
Good grief! It must have been so frustrating for such a brilliant man to be surrounded with people below his intellectual level. The look on his face at the end: "I'm surrounded by idiots!"
No, he doesn't have a stammer...but Claudius and Alan Turing did, so it's only coincidence...check his interviews and you'll see that he speaks fluently, and he's really smart. :)
matteholm75's quite right about the stammering characters...though I think Mr.Jacobi has a natural gift for acting, a naturalness and truthfullness while playing wich is, IMO, stunning.
only a great actor like DJ could say the whole boring monologue with such enthusiasm that it almost turned alive and understandable. lol.
I am amazed over and over again by Jacobi s acting skills. Have not seen this movie, will try to find it. I am a big fan of Jacobi since I first saw I Claudius in the late 70s
I loved this production. Thought it was a lot better than the recent movie with Cumberbatch (I'm sure I just misspelled his name). !!
wow.... Giant of an actor.
Derek Jacobi, as Alan Turing, manifests the identical stammer-stutter that he crafted for his award-winning performance playing the lame Roman emperor _Claudius_ in the BBC series _I, Claudius_ (1976).
dont have a flickr account, but this exchange makes me want to post one, even if only for your curiosity. fine, i'll do it. The only photos i have to post are from my last trip. it was from San Francisco, CA to Atlanta, GA. i saw (and caught) some beautiful topography. the pilot took us over the grand canyon with minimal cloud ceiling, so my camera, (10x optical, but i'm amatuer, so good enough..) actually reeled in some decent shots. plus some really nice cummulous angles.
I saw your photos on flickr. Marvelous work. I, too, like to take photos from inside an airliner.
He is just flawless.
WONDERFUL!!!! AMAZING ACTOR!!!!!
This description of right and wrong is pretty exquisite and extremely clear and actually has context now more than any other time. What is believed to make a person good or bad is determined by that very equation. It would also be useful to remove the term "Person" unless to use as a placeholder because it is not the person (mask) which is being examined for authenticity but the individual behind it and the one who constructs the mask.
Therefore, because we are being more precise in what we are evaluating as right and wrong is the extent to which an individual constitutes an authentic human. I suspect laboring this point here would likely make some readers either uncomfortable or hostile.
However, what is worth pursuing is how the mathematical tools used to arrive at Turing's conclusions could offer insight into the existential state beyond the event horizon of the singularity. In order to achieve that, what factors need to be considered? Turing was absolutely correct, that only a computer (or as He puts it) a machine is able to do that. If one seeks to make as accurate a determination then one has no choice but to think exactly like a machine. As indeed, at least from an analytical perspective and limited to elevated cognitive states, as do I.
If one is unable to simultaneously think both for and against one's worldview then one will consistently fail at this exercise. In order to begin to understand elevated cognition, one must recognize that their is currently no formal work on the subject. A brief addendum at this stage for clarification. The emphasis with respect to an authentic human state is critical because it is that which lends itself to an elevated cognitive state and not the personality.
The final point to understand, which to many would seem quite a frightening prospect, would be the experience of being in the state mentioned above. To more easily comprehend this, it would be useful to focus attention on the function of our five senses and all the experience which has been gathered through them and to what extent the result will be of value within the stage of human evolution characterized by elevated cognition. I have previously offer some insight into this which I am quite confident Turins Macine would confirm.
Here is a proper transcript with a couple of apposite annotations by myself:
[ Interviewer ]:
I’ve been furnished with some details of your work Mr Turing, most of which I have to tell you, I find almost totally incomprehensible.
[ Alan Turing ]:
Yes, it's hardly surprising!
[ I ]:
I used to be rather good at, uh, mathematics when I was younger but, um, this is, well, baffling (Excuse this intrusion, but does this sound familiar to the reader?). For instance, this thing here, on computable numbers with an application to the Ent Scheid Ung Problem. Can you tell me something about it, well anything, a few words of explanation, in general terms?
[ A T ]:
A few words of explanation?
[ I ]:
Yeah!
[ AT ]:
In general terms?
[ I ]:
If possible!
[ A T ]:
Well, um, it's about right or wrong, in general terms. It's a technical paper in mathematical logic, but it's also about the difficulty of telling right from wrong. You see, people think that, well most people think, that in mathematics we always know what is right and what is wrong. Not so! Not anymore! It's a problem that's occupied mathematicians for 40 or 50 years. I mean, how do you tell right from wrong? Yes, Bertrand Russell has written an immense book on the subject in his Mathematica Principia. His idea was to break down all mathematical concepts and arguments into little pieces and then show that they could be derived from pure Logic. Well, it didn't quite work out that way. And after many years of intensive work, I mean, all he was able to do was to show that it's, um, it's terribly difficult to do anything of the kind, but yeah, it was an important book. Important and influential. It
influenced both David Hilbert and Kurt Goedel. It's rather like, what physicists call splitting the atom. As analysing the physical atom has led to the discovery of a new kind of physics, so the attempt to analyse these mathematical “atoms” has led to a new kind of mathematics.
David Hilbert took the whole thing a stage further. I don't suppose his name means much, if anything to you?
[ I ]:
No, no!
[ A T ]:
Well there you are! You see it's the way of the world! People never seem to hear about the really great mathematicians.
But, um, Hilbert looked at the problem from a completely different angle. He said, “if we have any fundamental system for mathematics (like the one, um, Russell was trying to work out) then it should satisfy three basic requirements, “Consistency”, “Completeness” and “Decidability”. Now, “Consistency” means that you won't ever get a contradiction in your own system. In other words, you'll never be able to follow the rules of your system and end up showing that two and two make five. “Completeness”, means that if any statement is true, there must be some way of proving it by using the rules of your system. And “Decidability” means, the “decidability” means that there must exist some method, some definite procedure or test which can be applied to any given mathematical assertion, and which will decide, whether or not that assertion is provable. Now, Hilbert thought this a perfectly reasonable set of requirements to impose. But within a few years Kurt Goedel showed that no system for mathematics could be both consistent and complete, and he did this by constructing a mathematical assertion which said, in effect, “This assertion cannot be proved”! A classic paradox! This assertion cannot be proved! Well, either it can or it can't! If it can be proved, we have a contradiction, and the system is inconsistent. If it cannot be proved, then the assertion is true
but it can't be proved, which means the system is incomplete, thus (the) mathematics is either inconsistent or it's incomplete. It's a beautiful theory! It's quite beautiful! I think Goedel’s theorem is the most beautiful thing I know.
But the question of “Decidability” was still unsettled. Now Hilbert ,as I said had thought that there should be one single, clearly defined method for deciding whether or not mathematical assertions were provable, the decision problem he called it the “Ent Scheid Ung Problem”. Now, in my book on computable numbers, I wanted to show that, no one method can work for all questions. Solving mathematical problems requires an infinite supply of new ideas ( case in point being the production of an infinite supply of “original thought” ). Well, it was one thing to make such a claim and it was a monumental task to prove it. I needed to examine the provability of mathematical assertions past present and future. I mean how on Earth was anything to be done? But eventually one word gave me a clue. People have been talking about a mechanical process; a process that could be applied mechanically to solving mathematical problems without requiring any human intervention or ingenuity. “A machine!” That was the crucial word! I conceived the idea of a machine, a Touring Machine, which will be able to scan mathematical symbols. It would read them, if you like, it would read a mathematical assertion and then arrive at a verdict as to whether or not that assertion were provable, and with this concept I was able to show that Hilbert was wrong! My idea worked!
[ I ]:
yeah see! Well i don't, but
i see something…
AllFrom rosapurpureaDerek JacobiRelatedRecently uploadedWatched
Conclusion by: A: Tarjanyi (HH)
The Turing Test “In general terms” requires a computer system to demonstrate that it can “think” and communicate like a human. It is incumbent, however, upon humanity, both as the individual and as the collective, as it is approaching the Technological Singularity, to demonstrate that it is able to “think” like a computer!
this is one of the most amazing scenes i've seen in a long time, and i've seen some amazing movies lately
acting is, in fact, noticeably great. his stammer did throw me for a loop. i, too, wondered if he just does this every day, or is it a solid acting performance. i couldn't do that on call nearly as smoothly as he.
Who else but Dereck Jacobi could give a lecture on maths, and make it so engrossing?
grahamsmith1907 Q
I was enchanted the first time I saw this, I knew the movie, but I had the US version, where this masterpiece had been cut and words replaced with music...
I keep wondering why some people need to let the whole world know their opinion about something they dislike...you don't like it, don't bother...
Yes, one take, mind you, no cuts, camera's always on him...
well... maths may be exciting indeed for one who understands it properly.
as for me... hmmm.... i kinda got lost inside the explanations... lol.
What a fantastic scene!
Yes I knew that...I'm quite addicted to this man , but I never actually heard it till you mentioned it, thanks!!! ;)
'Inconsistent or incomplete' - Perfect!
Sorry, never answered to this because I was really flattered and embarassed...but reading it again tonight I thought you deserve a huge THANK YOU! :))
Im trying to learn this (and all the other scenes) for my upcoming play of Breaking the Code - this is sooooo difficult to learn
Yes, I have that too, but I'll have to watch it again 'cause I don't remember how breathtaking it was ;)))
you mean the old wizzard rat? cool! i listened crefully and recognized him . wooow! the movie seems pretty interesting. and it's that wonderful animation style of the 20th c. fox. like in Charlie or Fivel!
I think Hugh Whitemore has to get a lot of the credit, for writing this speech in the first place.
I can't find this on DVD anywhere, but maybe I need to look harder.
No, just this one because was cut from USA version...
Well, ever since the success of "I, Claudius", Derek Jacobi has been headhunted for stammering characters, so he has had lots of practice.
I suppose I understand the choice, but it was still a huge risk- choosing a man of nearly 60 to play chap in his 30s.
Good to know...
@gup1138 : For anyone who understands what Jacobi is saying, and a few of us do, its not impossible to do that in one take. :)
I actually agree with naly, but I must admit I find quite fascinating what he's saying...even though I can't understand the whole thing.
2020 are you here ?
2021 I'm here
Not through the usual sources. Maybe there's a DVD-R from some company. But it is available on VHS from Amazon and ebay.
*tirayl said* (5 hours ago)
How true!
I bet Turing himself couldn't have made this situation so interesting. It's riveting.
What's more is he makes me understand it. A bit.
Great comment by the way.
Yes, I agree, it's just stunning...that's why BBC chooses most of his actors among theatre ones...less work with editing and directing! ;p
Goodness that's really flattering!Thank you!!!*blushes*
I see you're a writer(among other things)...that's quite stimulating for my poor brain and my incurable curiosity... :)
@gnamp I agree...in fact he did it in theatre in 1985, more plausible then...I just let drop the idea and enjoy the acting :)
well, i wouldn't agree with you on the "single best hand animated film of all time" issue. it's wonderfully made, but my favourite film is Disney HOND. lol 4 me, of course. i love Frollo.
He is indeed.. :))
Actually I didn't ask anything...ask and wonder are not the same verb, at least in my part of the world...but, since you seem keen on arguing, nobody here declared himself a mathematician, we're just appreciating good acting...some more "groupiey" than others...is that a crime? Come on, take it easy, life's not a battlefield!
Yes, it's really a masterpiece of acting! :)
you can check cadfael or any other charater he interpreted in his career and see he speaks fluently. lol.
I think BBC made a DVD few months ago...not sure though, try on Amazon UK
You're right- it did; somewhat better in the mid-eighties- but I can suspend disbelief for the sake of this performance.
at 2.08 Mr jacobi has the SAME stammer used in i claudius
best wishes
I completely agree with all...still some of the things is saying are not so clear to me...but probably it's just because 1-it isn't my mother tongue 2-I'm not into mathematics ;)
Does anyone know where I can find the scripted text for Turing(s) monologue? I've been looking everywhere for it. :(
My pleasure, I'm glad to find some new "groupies" ;p
(sorry, just answering to some comments below...)
Yes he had a stammer...bad one in youth, got better when he grew up...
I'm not much into mathematics, so I'll trust you :)
Did you upload this other section? I too remember the Government agent who reminds Turing he is being watched?
Eheh...I'll take Jacobi if you don't mind...he's a humanist (got a degree in history), more my kind ^^
Yes you should, something like Amazon or IBS...
LOL!I know...He's simply wonderful...this scene it's power in acting...electricity...his eyes...fantastic!Oh, BTW...my father Zeus sends you a kiss ;p
I was rude? one more time I write something y'all freak out!! sorry i said anything I won't bother you anymore don't fret.
Thank you!
Airliner? Sounds interesting and odd...do you have a flickr account? Like to see your work.
Now I'm curious...hope to find your account somehow... :)))
ROTF
This is frickin' great!!!!
lol!!!!!!!
I don't fallow you...what do you mean "acting a interview"?? Is that for job interview? If should it be, well, don't know why people are so enthusiastic about this...probably because is one take, loooong speech, difficult contents and he's believeble and natural...makes it almost understandable to a layman(woman ;p) like me... :)
@rosapurpurea good idea :)
After seeing this clip, and thanks to it, I went ahead and got the full movie. Wouldn't you know they edited this scene down to a nub, starting with the start of Jacobi's monologue and then segueing to the end of it. Ugghhhh! WHY DO THAT??? If it was for consumption by the typical American audience, I can understand that. But the "typical" American doesn't watch Masterpiece Theater, nor biographies of the trials & tribulations of scholarly British homosexuals. I feel cheated! Thank God for YT.
Mmmh...all right ;p
Ahahahah...that's naughty... :)
But it worked!
Since I'm a perfect fool I deleted your first comment, but I managed to copy it again...sorry!!!!
As for this one...I agree, completely...
Relativity, quantum theory, Godel Theorem, is bla,bla,bla....
(cont.) There's a level above this sort-of jargon-filled babble where the same ideas are communicated quickly and clearly. The absolute god-like thinkers...Socrates, Confucius, Da Vinci, or even people like Richard Feynman, don't have this rambling problem, though they're discussing ideas at the same level.
The MOST intelligent and knowledgeable people won't confuse you. In fact, they'll do the opposite, telling you things that make perfect sense, but that you just hadn't thought of yet.
That was quite rude, don't you think? We were just answering...we got it decades ago, but we just disagree...you know, freedom of thought and stuff like that? Maybe you're the one who needs to get a life since you're wasting time talking to us about something you don't even like that much hey?
Entscheidungsproblem 4:44
For cryin out loud people!! I didn't mean to ruffle such feathers. Now you understand I hope, Why I called it a groupie situation. I just happen to read the ...oh hell I've allready explained myself and apparently no one gets it. I know this man is a good actor and I respect that but I only thought it a little overboard with some of the comments and ev eryone attacked me...for words!!! Get a life!!
Well, I suppose you're talking about moi? I commented because after watching and then reading the comments I thought you people sounded like a bunch of groupies for cryin out loud. You seem to fawn over this man as if he were a god and he's done nothing but stammer an inconsistant babble. Remember now, you asked
See, there you go again with the holier than thou attitude which is what made me think "groupie" in the first place. All I did was see a video I wasn't aware of, in my watch list for some reason, and I just read a few comments and they sounded, well you've already heard. I do know the actor and he is a good actor but to base his ability on acting a interview is a bit overboard., that's all. He's done many more interesting things in his career yet these are not touted. Mmmmm
I don't know how this video got on my watch list but I must admit I'm at a loss trying to figure out what the man's talking about, it certainly isn't mathematics. One more thing, what's with the drooling over this actor,he's not that great for cryin out loud. Unless I stumbled onto a fan site.