That was one of the loveliest articles I’ve read for a while. Just to think that if it wasn’t for Covid ( which, btw I have now😥) I would never have heard of you. Thank you for giving such pleasure in a few lines.
I made it to number 12 in the 1993 national Dutch mathematics Olympiad, thanks to some lucky insights on that day. Then I was invited to spend a week at a hostel with the other top 15 kids, and quickly found out I wouldn't make it to the IMO in Turkey. In fact I did a guessing game myself to figure out who was going, and mostly figured it out. I remember sitting in the car with one of the instructors feeling a little deflated as the others were so much quicker in solving the problems that were given. But he said I'd do fine as as an undergraduate, and in fact would be one of the best of my class. His prediction was correct, and I followed up with a PhD. Still I remember that week fondly!
13 years later, by chance, I met one of my fellow contestants, Jitse Niesen, who did make it to Turkey, in Melbourne, since he ended up in the same specialization (Dynamical Systems and Numerical Analysis) so we caught up. In the end he ended up as a Lecturer in Leeds, and myself doing research support in HPC at McGill.
I think the comparison with chess is apt, it's a specific skill set, namely quickly seeing solutions to pure maths problems. I was simply too slow, but with enough time I could fix some but definitely not all. Similarly as an undergraduate I lost the plot in some of the most abstract courses (e.g. Algebraic Geometry), but flew through analysis/calculus. Lots of people like playing chess, and lots of people like solving math puzzles, doesn't mean you need to be at the top.
So I thoroughly agree with your last sentence, don't feel disheartened if you don't make since the skill set to succeed at the IMO is much narrower than what you need as a research mathematician.
That's really interesting, thanks for sharing your experiences! In general I think high standards are important because that's how we push ourselves to do better, but I am uncomfortable that people (like you, and like Duminil-Copin in the article) can be left with a message that they are somehow failures at the age of 17-18 just because they don't have the very specific skillset required to do enough of these problems at sufficient speed.
I didn't make the team - maybe it was a terrible trip at the last hurdle or a freakish overperformance at the penultimate one: either way a severe lack of practice beforehand. But if the Olympics is a chance for the best to flex their muscles and celebrate their youth in competing together I was, as a teenager, also very much up for that. A global summer camp of brilliant young people earnestly collaborating on open problems might be a lot more like mathematics but wouldn't be nearly as much like a competition.
Sure, I agree it would change the character of the experience a lot, and I know not everyone would agree with me that it would necessarily be a change for the better! I just wanted to put it out there though!!
Mad props to you for making the team! I think people underestimate their own abilities when they make such gradings because they can see the people above them. In the field I understand better, it's like the tennis player who has peaked at world No.100 being dissatisfied because he or she didn't make the top 50, or top 10, or top. But you're the 100th best! Out of billions!
I do like the idea of setting them all to work on unsolved problems, though. Riemann before lunch, Goldbach in the afternoon?
Thanks! It's an interesting analogy with tennis, and that makes sense. Though I think maybe the issue of competition makes it slightly different - it's clear there that there are only 4 chances to win a Grand Slam per year, and so if someone else does it then you can't, whereas like I say maths feels like it should be more collaborative?
And obviously nothing as ambitious as that, problem-wise. But I've had three papers in the last few years which have arisen from summer projects with undergrads, and I don't think it's crazy to think that the best of the IMO people could potentially be at a similar level to that already.
That was one of the loveliest articles I’ve read for a while. Just to think that if it wasn’t for Covid ( which, btw I have now😥) I would never have heard of you. Thank you for giving such pleasure in a few lines.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it - and sorry to hear about your COVID, hope it's not a bad one!
I made it to number 12 in the 1993 national Dutch mathematics Olympiad, thanks to some lucky insights on that day. Then I was invited to spend a week at a hostel with the other top 15 kids, and quickly found out I wouldn't make it to the IMO in Turkey. In fact I did a guessing game myself to figure out who was going, and mostly figured it out. I remember sitting in the car with one of the instructors feeling a little deflated as the others were so much quicker in solving the problems that were given. But he said I'd do fine as as an undergraduate, and in fact would be one of the best of my class. His prediction was correct, and I followed up with a PhD. Still I remember that week fondly!
13 years later, by chance, I met one of my fellow contestants, Jitse Niesen, who did make it to Turkey, in Melbourne, since he ended up in the same specialization (Dynamical Systems and Numerical Analysis) so we caught up. In the end he ended up as a Lecturer in Leeds, and myself doing research support in HPC at McGill.
I think the comparison with chess is apt, it's a specific skill set, namely quickly seeing solutions to pure maths problems. I was simply too slow, but with enough time I could fix some but definitely not all. Similarly as an undergraduate I lost the plot in some of the most abstract courses (e.g. Algebraic Geometry), but flew through analysis/calculus. Lots of people like playing chess, and lots of people like solving math puzzles, doesn't mean you need to be at the top.
So I thoroughly agree with your last sentence, don't feel disheartened if you don't make since the skill set to succeed at the IMO is much narrower than what you need as a research mathematician.
That's really interesting, thanks for sharing your experiences! In general I think high standards are important because that's how we push ourselves to do better, but I am uncomfortable that people (like you, and like Duminil-Copin in the article) can be left with a message that they are somehow failures at the age of 17-18 just because they don't have the very specific skillset required to do enough of these problems at sufficient speed.
I didn't make the team - maybe it was a terrible trip at the last hurdle or a freakish overperformance at the penultimate one: either way a severe lack of practice beforehand. But if the Olympics is a chance for the best to flex their muscles and celebrate their youth in competing together I was, as a teenager, also very much up for that. A global summer camp of brilliant young people earnestly collaborating on open problems might be a lot more like mathematics but wouldn't be nearly as much like a competition.
Sure, I agree it would change the character of the experience a lot, and I know not everyone would agree with me that it would necessarily be a change for the better! I just wanted to put it out there though!!
Mad props to you for making the team! I think people underestimate their own abilities when they make such gradings because they can see the people above them. In the field I understand better, it's like the tennis player who has peaked at world No.100 being dissatisfied because he or she didn't make the top 50, or top 10, or top. But you're the 100th best! Out of billions!
I do like the idea of setting them all to work on unsolved problems, though. Riemann before lunch, Goldbach in the afternoon?
Thanks! It's an interesting analogy with tennis, and that makes sense. Though I think maybe the issue of competition makes it slightly different - it's clear there that there are only 4 chances to win a Grand Slam per year, and so if someone else does it then you can't, whereas like I say maths feels like it should be more collaborative?
And obviously nothing as ambitious as that, problem-wise. But I've had three papers in the last few years which have arisen from summer projects with undergrads, and I don't think it's crazy to think that the best of the IMO people could potentially be at a similar level to that already.