Ok, it's wildly unfair for a Putnam fellow to be looking at these, but since you asked... I think I can see how to solve problem 6, but I'd have to take a few minutes to make sure that my solution works. The other 5 problems took me about 30 seconds each.
Hell, I've personally seen a few high school science fair projects that are essentially graduate level work involving genetic engineering and monte carlo simulations.
Funny, I was about to say that I've seen far too many graduate students doing work which is essentially high school science fair material.
<irony> wow ... that just makes me feel bad about myself. </irony>
Even so, that's very impressive. After looking through, I only see likely solutions to 3 of the 6, and I would still have a fair amount of work to even verify those 3.
The ability to do these sorts of competitions is a learned skill like any other. Certainly, it is a learned skill that has some relation to research ability within mathematics, but neither tests, nor grades, nor classes are the be-all or end-all of skill measurement tools. If you can solve half the questions, you have enough logical ability to accomplish anything short of beating cperciva at a math competition. The true mark of skill is to go use that to create something new--anything else is just practice.
Someone needed to say this. Glorifying the Putnam is a perfect example of what the author of the essay was discussing as a "false sense of self-worth" that's based in numeric metrics.
The world is filled with brilliant, respected people who never did well on a math test.
Comments
USAMO problems... Take a look
Ok, it's wildly unfair for a Putnam fellow to be looking at these, but since you asked... I think I can see how to solve problem 6, but I'd have to take a few minutes to make sure that my solution works. The other 5 problems took me about 30 seconds each.
Hell, I've personally seen a few high school science fair projects that are essentially graduate level work involving genetic engineering and monte carlo simulations.
Funny, I was about to say that I've seen far too many graduate students doing work which is essentially high school science fair material.
<irony> wow ... that just makes me feel bad about myself. </irony>
Even so, that's very impressive. After looking through, I only see likely solutions to 3 of the 6, and I would still have a fair amount of work to even verify those 3.
goes and mopes in the corner
The ability to do these sorts of competitions is a learned skill like any other. Certainly, it is a learned skill that has some relation to research ability within mathematics, but neither tests, nor grades, nor classes are the be-all or end-all of skill measurement tools. If you can solve half the questions, you have enough logical ability to accomplish anything short of beating cperciva at a math competition. The true mark of skill is to go use that to create something new--anything else is just practice.
Someone needed to say this. Glorifying the Putnam is a perfect example of what the author of the essay was discussing as a "false sense of self-worth" that's based in numeric metrics.
The world is filled with brilliant, respected people who never did well on a math test.
I can't agree that creating something new is more special than being one of the best in chess, math, tennis, or another ranked field.