This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Congratulations, this article meets all of the GA criteria. My only suggestion is that, if you wish to improve the article further, then the lead could be expanded and a few more references added. I wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
While there is no such thing as Wheeler-lab there is Lincon-Lab at M.I.T. which focuses only on defence related stuff, and is thus very clearly the inspiration for "Wheeler.Lab". So maybe this should be mentioned in the article- where it curently lastes that there is no such thing as Wheeler-Lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph from the historical divergence section, because it is unclear, and the sources need to be clarified. Does anyone have any idea what this is about? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
During graduate school, it appears in the movie that Nash was averse to game playing, when, in fact, according to Nasar's biography, he spent many hours playing games and even created a new game called "John" or "Nash" (Hex). The game was somewhat similar to Go, but the shape of the squares became hexagons. The game, somewhat in conflict with the movie's mathematical point, was not one in which "nobody wins," but was "a zero-sum two-person game with perfect information in which one player always has a winning strategy" (p. 77).[clarification needed] Though this game was not shown in the film's theatrical cut, a deleted scene shows Nash inventing the game and showing it off to his friends at Princeton.
Martin Gardner's Mathematical Games column in Scientific American (later collected in book form) covered the invention of Hex by Nash in some detail. It is not very similar to GO, it is a game in which each side attempts to create a connected path form one side of the board to another. One player tries to go from right to left (or east to west), and the other from top to bottom (or north to south). The playing spaces are hexagons rather than squares. One player must win, and indeed it can easily be proven that the first player has a winning strategy, although no one knows what it is (or didn't when I last read up on this, perhaps it has been found). The game was originally called "Nash" or "John", the latter a pun because the hexagonal tiles in the public restrooms at Princeton (and many other places) suggest the playing board for Hex (as it was later known). I don't have sources at hand for this, but it can easily be sourced. Nash was by several accounts an avid player of games. DES(talk) 17:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to mergeOrlady (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This soundtrack may be notable by awards and critical reaction. However, the soundtrack article is small enough to fit into the film article without repetition. Shall we use WP:N and WP:NMUSIC to object or be in favor of the merger? Not all "notable" subtopics guarantee a stand-alone article. The soundtrack is part of the film, and I'm unsure why it should be treated as independent from the film. George Ho (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The article of the film soundtrack, A Beautiful Mind, was expanded into what it is right now. Per WP:N, even when notable, the subtopic may not guarantee a stand-alone article. As the article currently stands, is it mergeable to the film article? --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge I stumbled upon the film score article by accident and expanded it from its previous awful stub-y state. George already knows my opinion on this, but for anyone else reading: while I did not create this article, I believe that there is enough secondary coverage out there to make it a notable topic (major awards, critical reception, etc). And while the parent article is not completed, I think it's long enough to render a pure merge difficult. And if this were merged, what would stop other film score articles (most of which are less notable) from being merged into their parent articles? I'd be interested to hear other opinions. Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I don't see any substantial reason for the merge. This soundtrack's notability is now clear, and in light of the huge number of other albums at Category:Film soundtracks that (correctly) have their own articles, I don't think that customary style or other considerations would militate in favor of a merger. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge there's simply no reason to. theonesean 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Nash did not win any Nobel Prize!! it is really annoying how often this wrong information is mentioned in this article. Nash won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics, that has been created by the Swedish Bank Sverige Riksbank and is awarded together with the Nobel Prizes. It is however not recognised as a Nobel prize, and btw heavily criticised for misusing Nobels Name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
While the film's basis is Sylvia Nasar's biography, it does not mention Nash's hallucinations as being antisemitic - as they were - instead substitute it for anti-communistic views. Generally, any mention of criticism on this movie, e.g. that it shows Nash in all too good light and omits any negative facts from his life, falls short. In pages in other languages, the film is reviewed with a lot less bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)