"david_...@yahoo.com" <david_...@yahoo.com>: Oct 14 07:18PM
Thanks for your thoughts Jeremy, Gabi, and Istvàn. I agree with Jeremy that #1 is going to be very important for the journal and appreciate his thoughts there. However I want to say something about #2--those who have already been identified as having mathematical talent and seem destined for a "math connected life."
I don't think it is as much of a given as you might think that such a person will end up in a "math connected life" even if that is their intention. I would want the journal to support them in staying in a "math connected life" if that is their goal--because I think that is harder to do than you might think.
I need to define my terms here though: I do not, in general, consider a career in tech working as a computer programmer to be a "math connected life." There are exceptions such as if the programmer is applying advanced math to computer science or math is the domain of application of the programming. But in general the vast, vast majority of computer programmers use little to no mathematics in their work and are not leading a "math connected life" by my definition of mathematics.
At one time my undergraduate uni, Waterloo, awarded Bachelor of Mathematics degrees to graduates in computer science. This has since been changed and such graduates now get Bachelor of Computer Science degrees. Although a bureaucratic change, I think this change accurately reflects the fact that tech, although having some of its roots in math, has grown apart from math and should now be considered a separate field.
People working in tech are encouraged to keep their tech skills current to remain relevant and employable. The same encouragement regarding math skills is usually not provided unless, again, the programmer is one of the small percentage actually applying tech to math problems. Most people leading tech connected lives can and will see their math skills wither as the greater economic demand for the tech skills tends to dominate.
Perhaps for some, this is not a problem. If someone wants to work in tech and is happy evolving away from math it is not my intention to try to stop them. But hope is that the journal would, in addition to supporting #1, will support those in #2 who want to lead a "math connected life." It is harder to do outside of academia than you might think, and we all know academic jobs are scarce.
I know I'm not the only person with a math background who finds that a career in tech is not mathematically satisfying. I've talked to others with strong mathematical roots who agree with me, often quietly and in private, that there is something dissatisfying about a career in tech for a mathematician.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 7:43 AM, jeremy resnick<resnick...@gmail.com> wrote: Greetings All,
Wanted to share the thoughts of someone (me!) whose spent their whole adult life in high schools as a math teacher, principal, and director of a network of charter schools.
I can see two purposes for a talent search/development effort:
1) Awakening an appreciation for the power of mathematical thinking among those who have an aptitude for it but who would otherwise have little opportunity to encounter it. 2) Enriching the experience of those whose talent has already been discovered and who are already likely to end up in some kind of math connected life.
I imagine that most of us who participated in the Competition Corner would be in bucket #2 (but I don't know). I certainly was. I wasn't among the strongest of the participants (and never made it to USAMO or through any other nationally selective screen). But my high school had a math team that competed locally and had AP mathematics offerings. Competition Corner was fun, but I don't think it opened a whole new set of life possibilities for me. My aptitude had already been discovered, and I was on a track to go to college. I absorbed from my college professors and peers the directions I might go in terms of careers. For many reasons, I ended up a teacher-but I wouldn't include my involvement with Competition Corner as significant to the broad direction of my life.
It would be most helpful to hear from participants who see their involvement (in retrospect) as more akin to #1--and who would be testimony to the potential life changing impact of what we might develop.
I would be very interested in a talent search that was focused on purpose #1. A big effort aimed at youth who encounter mathematics and mathematical thinking anyways (perhaps a few years later or in a less pure way) just doesn't have the same appeal.
Here is a reflection from Titus Kaphar on his journey. He's an artist, but I think his story could be helpful to us.
"I didn’t do well at school. I failed most of the classes that I took. I got kicked out of kindergarten. I was suspended very often in high school. I wasn’t a good student to say the least. I went on to junior college only because I was trying to impress a woman who would later become my wife. Long story short, I took an art history class in junior college and it opened up the world to me. It made me realize that I had a kind of visual intelligence I never knew existed, and that if I could understand the world through images—and sound also—I could figure things out. So I went from being a very poor student to being on the dean’s list, and that was mind blowing to me."
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/titus-kaphar-erasure-art-history-1497391
Jeremy Resnick
On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:35:10 PM UTC-4 Gabriella Pinter wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the comments and for taking the time to post.
Basically we share the sentiment. We have committed to help to bring the bookto life to document George's effort decades ago and committed to start thisplatform (which is less than adequate) but we too have a number ofparallel commitments going on. We tried to put dollar amounts on George’svision of a national Mathematics Student Journal and a North-American problemsolving competition based math talent development effort. The production ofsuch journal with appropriate content (sans competition problem component) (dependingon scope and quality) would have it's own expense. The problem competitioncomponent effort as was suggested has its own. The scope, the ways and themeans for both are up for debate. We scaled/projected the Wisconsinproblem competition effort numbers and put them out. The size of the proposedeffort startled us as well as others. (The proposed effort with grading andstrong mentoring does not scale well.) The ‘sticker shock’ may have discouragedpeople from joining this conversation.
We think that mounting a national effort to mathcentered talent development through problem solving, starting from zero in the currentlyproposed form is vastly ambitious and in fact has more of a headwind in thecurrent cultural/political landscape than it had decades ago (note that thecurrent structures of mathematics education and talent development are beingunder attack for exhibiting strong racial bias, and Walter's comment earlierthat it is culturally-politically a non-controversial, safe sphere may not becorrect).
An attempt for a freely and widely accessible resource tostrengthen the scale and quality of mathematical talent development eitherneeds to be large and centralized, (with governmental support), or it needs tobe developed organically and be aimed at complementing the variety of talentdevelopment initiatives currently present in the US (math circles, AoPS, a variety of year-round and summer math campsand math competitions, Julia Robinson Math Festivals, Brilliant, expii, COMAPmath modeling competitions for middle and high school, SIAM modeling competition, WI Talent Search, MITPrimes, RSI, etc....). Yes, the journal would need enthusiasticvolunteers. There are a number of those around and many of them are alreadyactive in different initiatives that reach segments of the middle school highschool student population. We think George argues that the organic, incremental(and patchwork) approach is not sufficiently effective, leaves out very largeswatches of the student population, and for the scale necessary it cannot fullyrely on voluntarism, and it needs consistent funding.
However, it seems that a more organic approach is moreappealing to the group here and it seems more viable. What would it look like? Whatdo you think is reasonable to start with?
David mentioned commitment from people in academia. This canmost certainly be secured but people would need to know what to commit to. Stateuniversities are not in a very good condition right now, at least here inWisconsin. Graduate and undergraduate students may provide some workforce, but atUWM teaching assistants earn 15K for 9 months and most of our undergrads areworking in outside jobs to support their studies. So it’s unlikely that we can getvolunteer support from our university.
We’d be happy to talk if there’s interest or continue theconversation here.
Gabriella and Istvan
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:27:23 AM UTC-5 david_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi JC,
Thanks for these comments--it is good to have a new voice joining the discussion!
Just to clarify my own level of commitment--I am potentially willing to commit both my time (as a part time, not full time, volunteer) and my money (not beyond low five figures) to this project.
However almost everyone who has opined on this project, including you, seems to agree on one point: for this project to succeed it is going to require buy-in from unis and/or high schools--probably both. I also agree. However, that is, unfortunately, what I do not bring to the table: I can bring some time and some money to this project, but I'm not in an academic career myself. For the project to succeed, I think it will take someone from academia willing to also commit to the project. That person might not necessarily be making a huge time investment, but they would need to be willing to lend their name--and, by extension, the name of their uni--to the project. I think it will take someone with the relative security of tenure and with ten years or more to go before retirement.
There may well be people in this group who match these criteria--or, if they have less than ten years to retirement, at least have enough years left before retirement to help get the project well started before they switch to emeritus status. Unfortunately I'm not such a person myself. I would not necessarily expect a huge time commitment from such a person, but it would need to be someone we can call up at any time and get at least a few minutes of their time if their support is needed.
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-7 JC TOWNEND wrote:
Hi friends and allies,
I have really enjoyed this trip down memory lane, and the idea of trying to re-establish some similar competition for young people going forward. However, the group seems a bit haphazard and the setup on Google groups with random emails and unorganized threads is challenging.
If we are going to go forward effectively, it’s clear there are 3 streams: a stream dedicated to the pursuit of establishing a new competition, possibly a stream creating fun and interesting problems amongst ourselves, and a stream creating potential problems for students once item 1 is complete.
I am interested only in stream 1. However, I agree with others that the idea that this would cost $500k-$1 million per year seems extreme. Especially if we are able to get volunteers, of which I could imagine there would be hundreds available who would be dedicated to the pursuit. And I’m concerned thatpeople willing to invest significant sums (in the 5 digits) are dropping out. Stream 1 requires a real leader who has time to dedicate a large amount of time to the pursuit, and will organize some meetings of interested parties or members where we can talk live and quickly get through ideas.
The first requirement is a thorough review of what is already available to high school students, and what is missing. Do we have connections to current mathematics teachers at the high school level? It also needs to be modernized with the problems of the day – how to prevent online cheating, which is so much easier than it was 40 years ago. I expect it would be best hosted by a university with a passionate professor and grad students who get just some seed funding. And before going grandiose with the travel and rewards, it has to be tested in concept. Also recognize there will be child protection issues that need to be built in, hence collaboration with schools and unis is a better setup than corporations. And finally, this is only worth pursuing if it is sustainable – that means it cannot be led for 3-4 years with passion and die out when the driver is missing. It also means it cannot rely on £1 million/year corporate funding – which is fickle. It needs to be inexpensive enough to be able to find funding consistently for 10-20 years, and needs an establishment that does not require the consistent passion of a single person, but that can be transitioned over the years.
I think this is an amazing opportunity. I do not have time to lead it. I hope someone does.
Kind regards,
-JC
JC Townend /CEO, UK & IRELAND
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
T +44 (0) 20 7332 7832
Assistant:Eleni.L...@lhh.com T +44 (0) 7467 753219
55 Gracechurch Street, London EC3V 0EE
Please note that I may work outside of normal office hours – however this does not mean I expect you to respond outside ofyour working hours.
From: competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 11 October 2021 07:55
To: Digest recipients <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Digest for competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic
|
competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com
|
Google Groups
|
|
Topic digest
View all topics
· Digest for competition-corner-participant-discussion@googlegroups. com - 5 updates in 1 topic - 2 Updates
Digest for competition-corner-participant-discussion@googlegroups. com - 5 updates in 1 topic
|
"Lin Gold" <lingol...@netzero.net>: Oct 10 06:45PM
OK, I've regrettably asked for "No email" status from this group. Although I was willing tocontribute some money to George's project, like George, I've had to change my mind whensomeone thinks it takes $500,000 or so per year to do the project and nobody thinksdifferently. As for the math problems, I don't do them anymore (maybe some AI discussionwould be interesting, but that's probably another group.) Let's see if my "No email" status works. Lin
---------- Original Message ----------
From: competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com
To: Digest recipients <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Digest for competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 1 topic
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 06:54:14 +0000
competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com Google Groups Topic digest
View all topics finite field problem - 5 Updates
finite field problem Walter Effross <eff...@wcl.american.edu>: Oct 09 11:21AM
I'm still getting the messages.
Several times, I've tried to unsubscribe by sending an e-mail to the address listed for that; each time, I get back a message saying that it's invalid because I'm not a member.
Best regards,
Walter
________________________________
From: 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 10:53 PM
To: Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite field problem |
"david_...@yahoo.com" <david_...@yahoo.com>: Oct 14 09:57PM
I would also add that while I would primarily categorize myself in #2 when it comes to CC, it was definitely through math competitions in general that I was identified as a mathematically precocious kid. No one individual math competition was life changing for me, but the overall experience of participating in many math competitions in youth certainly WAS life changing for me. George was an important leader of that community.
#1 is very important but the efforts of #1 can be wasted if #2 isn't in place--and #2 isn't the no-brainer people sometimes think it is.
Sometimes what is needed for someone in group #2 is not further enrichment of their mathematical skills, but development of soft skills needed to fully realize their mathematical potential. Sometimes promising young mathematicians don't fully realize their math talent due to weak social skills. Too often when a young mathematician shows weak social skills they are treated harshly like it is a moral failing or something. IMHO that is the wrong way to nurture mathematical talent. My hope would be that the journal play a role in helping to develop the softer skills in a positive, nurturing, non judgmental way.
I think both #1 and #2 in Jeremy's analysis are essential and neither one makes sense without the other. In my own youth #1 was actually very strong but #2 was much weaker. To the extent that is still true (is it?) the journal does need to focus on #2 while keeping #1 strong.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:18 PM, 'david_...@yahoo.com' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion<competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com> wrote: Thanks for your thoughts Jeremy, Gabi, and Istvàn. I agree with Jeremy that #1 is going to be very important for the journal and appreciate his thoughts there. However I want to say something about #2--those who have already been identified as having mathematical talent and seem destined for a "math connected life."
I don't think it is as much of a given as you might think that such a person will end up in a "math connected life" even if that is their intention. I would want the journal to support them in staying in a "math connected life" if that is their goal--because I think that is harder to do than you might think.
I need to define my terms here though: I do not, in general, consider a career in tech working as a computer programmer to be a "math connected life." There are exceptions such as if the programmer is applying advanced math to computer science or math is the domain of application of the programming. But in general the vast, vast majority of computer programmers use little to no mathematics in their work and are not leading a "math connected life" by my definition of mathematics.
At one time my undergraduate uni, Waterloo, awarded Bachelor of Mathematics degrees to graduates in computer science. This has since been changed and such graduates now get Bachelor of Computer Science degrees. Although a bureaucratic change, I think this change accurately reflects the fact that tech, although having some of its roots in math, has grown apart from math and should now be considered a separate field.
People working in tech are encouraged to keep their tech skills current to remain relevant and employable. The same encouragement regarding math skills is usually not provided unless, again, the programmer is one of the small percentage actually applying tech to math problems. Most people leading tech connected lives can and will see their math skills wither as the greater economic demand for the tech skills tends to dominate.
Perhaps for some, this is not a problem. If someone wants to work in tech and is happy evolving away from math it is not my intention to try to stop them. But hope is that the journal would, in addition to supporting #1, will support those in #2 who want to lead a "math connected life." It is harder to do outside of academia than you might think, and we all know academic jobs are scarce.
I know I'm not the only person with a math background who finds that a career in tech is not mathematically satisfying. I've talked to others with strong mathematical roots who agree with me, often quietly and in private, that there is something dissatisfying about a career in tech for a mathematician.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 7:43 AM, jeremy resnick<resnick...@gmail.com> wrote: Greetings All,
Wanted to share the thoughts of someone (me!) whose spent their whole adult life in high schools as a math teacher, principal, and director of a network of charter schools.
I can see two purposes for a talent search/development effort:
1) Awakening an appreciation for the power of mathematical thinking among those who have an aptitude for it but who would otherwise have little opportunity to encounter it. 2) Enriching the experience of those whose talent has already been discovered and who are already likely to end up in some kind of math connected life.
I imagine that most of us who participated in the Competition Corner would be in bucket #2 (but I don't know). I certainly was. I wasn't among the strongest of the participants (and never made it to USAMO or through any other nationally selective screen). But my high school had a math team that competed locally and had AP mathematics offerings. Competition Corner was fun, but I don't think it opened a whole new set of life possibilities for me. My aptitude had already been discovered, and I was on a track to go to college. I absorbed from my college professors and peers the directions I might go in terms of careers. For many reasons, I ended up a teacher-but I wouldn't include my involvement with Competition Corner as significant to the broad direction of my life.
It would be most helpful to hear from participants who see their involvement (in retrospect) as more akin to #1--and who would be testimony to the potential life changing impact of what we might develop.
I would be very interested in a talent search that was focused on purpose #1. A big effort aimed at youth who encounter mathematics and mathematical thinking anyways (perhaps a few years later or in a less pure way) just doesn't have the same appeal.
Here is a reflection from Titus Kaphar on his journey. He's an artist, but I think his story could be helpful to us.
"I didn’t do well at school. I failed most of the classes that I took. I got kicked out of kindergarten. I was suspended very often in high school. I wasn’t a good student to say the least. I went on to junior college only because I was trying to impress a woman who would later become my wife. Long story short, I took an art history class in junior college and it opened up the world to me. It made me realize that I had a kind of visual intelligence I never knew existed, and that if I could understand the world through images—and sound also—I could figure things out. So I went from being a very poor student to being on the dean’s list, and that was mind blowing to me."
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/titus-kaphar-erasure-art-history-1497391
Jeremy Resnick
On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:35:10 PM UTC-4 Gabriella Pinter wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the comments and for taking the time to post.
Basically we share the sentiment. We have committed to help to bring the bookto life to document George's effort decades ago and committed to start thisplatform (which is less than adequate) but we too have a number ofparallel commitments going on. We tried to put dollar amounts on George’svision of a national Mathematics Student Journal and a North-American problemsolving competition based math talent development effort. The production ofsuch journal with appropriate content (sans competition problem component) (dependingon scope and quality) would have it's own expense. The problem competitioncomponent effort as was suggested has its own. The scope, the ways and themeans for both are up for debate. We scaled/projected the Wisconsinproblem competition effort numbers and put them out. The size of the proposedeffort startled us as well as others. (The proposed effort with grading andstrong mentoring does not scale well.) The ‘sticker shock’ may have discouragedpeople from joining this conversation.
We think that mounting a national effort to mathcentered talent development through problem solving, starting from zero in the currentlyproposed form is vastly ambitious and in fact has more of a headwind in thecurrent cultural/political landscape than it had decades ago (note that thecurrent structures of mathematics education and talent development are beingunder attack for exhibiting strong racial bias, and Walter's comment earlierthat it is culturally-politically a non-controversial, safe sphere may not becorrect).
An attempt for a freely and widely accessible resource tostrengthen the scale and quality of mathematical talent development eitherneeds to be large and centralized, (with governmental support), or it needs tobe developed organically and be aimed at complementing the variety of talentdevelopment initiatives currently present in the US (math circles, AoPS, a variety of year-round and summer math campsand math competitions, Julia Robinson Math Festivals, Brilliant, expii, COMAPmath modeling competitions for middle and high school, SIAM modeling competition, WI Talent Search, MITPrimes, RSI, etc....). Yes, the journal would need enthusiasticvolunteers. There are a number of those around and many of them are alreadyactive in different initiatives that reach segments of the middle school highschool student population. We think George argues that the organic, incremental(and patchwork) approach is not sufficiently effective, leaves out very largeswatches of the student population, and for the scale necessary it cannot fullyrely on voluntarism, and it needs consistent funding.
However, it seems that a more organic approach is moreappealing to the group here and it seems more viable. What would it look like? Whatdo you think is reasonable to start with?
David mentioned commitment from people in academia. This canmost certainly be secured but people would need to know what to commit to. Stateuniversities are not in a very good condition right now, at least here inWisconsin. Graduate and undergraduate students may provide some workforce, but atUWM teaching assistants earn 15K for 9 months and most of our undergrads areworking in outside jobs to support their studies. So it’s unlikely that we can getvolunteer support from our university.
We’d be happy to talk if there’s interest or continue theconversation here.
Gabriella and Istvan
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:27:23 AM UTC-5 david_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi JC,
Thanks for these comments--it is good to have a new voice joining the discussion!
Just to clarify my own level of commitment--I am potentially willing to commit both my time (as a part time, not full time, volunteer) and my money (not beyond low five figures) to this project.
However almost everyone who has opined on this project, including you, seems to agree on one point: for this project to succeed it is going to require buy-in from unis and/or high schools--probably both. I also agree. However, that is, unfortunately, what I do not bring to the table: I can bring some time and some money to this project, but I'm not in an academic career myself. For the project to succeed, I think it will take someone from academia willing to also commit to the project. That person might not necessarily be making a huge time investment, but they would need to be willing to lend their name--and, by extension, the name of their uni--to the project. I think it will take someone with the relative security of tenure and with ten years or more to go before retirement.
There may well be people in this group who match these criteria--or, if they have less than ten years to retirement, at least have enough years left before retirement to help get the project well started before they switch to emeritus status. Unfortunately I'm not such a person myself. I would not necessarily expect a huge time commitment from such a person, but it would need to be someone we can call up at any time and get at least a few minutes of their time if their support is needed.
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-7 JC TOWNEND wrote:
Hi friends and allies,
I have really enjoyed this trip down memory lane, and the idea of trying to re-establish some similar competition for young people going forward. However, the group seems a bit haphazard and the setup on Google groups with random emails and unorganized threads is challenging.
If we are going to go forward effectively, it’s clear there are 3 streams: a stream dedicated to the pursuit of establishing a new competition, possibly a stream creating fun and interesting problems amongst ourselves, and a stream creating potential problems for students once item 1 is complete.
I am interested only in stream 1. However, I agree with others that the idea that this would cost $500k-$1 million per year seems extreme. Especially if we are able to get volunteers, of which I could imagine there would be hundreds available who would be dedicated to the pursuit. And I’m concerned thatpeople willing to invest significant sums (in the 5 digits) are dropping out. Stream 1 requires a real leader who has time to dedicate a large amount of time to the pursuit, and will organize some meetings of interested parties or members where we can talk live and quickly get through ideas.
The first requirement is a thorough review of what is already available to high school students, and what is missing. Do we have connections to current mathematics teachers at the high school level? It also needs to be modernized with the problems of the day – how to prevent online cheating, which is so much easier than it was 40 years ago. I expect it would be best hosted by a university with a passionate professor and grad students who get just some seed funding. And before going grandiose with the travel and rewards, it has to be tested in concept. Also recognize there will be child protection issues that need to be built in, hence collaboration with schools and unis is a better setup than corporations. And finally, this is only worth pursuing if it is sustainable – that means it cannot be led for 3-4 years with passion and die out when the driver is missing. It also means it cannot rely on £1 million/year corporate funding – which is fickle. It needs to be inexpensive enough to be able to find funding consistently for 10-20 years, and needs an establishment that does not require the consistent passion of a single person, but that can be transitioned over the years.
I think this is an amazing opportunity. I do not have time to lead it. I hope someone does.
Kind regards,
-JC
JC Townend /CEO, UK & IRELAND
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
T +44 (0) 20 7332 7832
Assistant:Eleni.L...@lhh.com T +44 (0) 7467 753219
55 Gracechurch Street, London EC3V 0EE
Please note that I may work outside of normal office hours – however this does not mean I expect you to respond outside ofyour working hours.
From: competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 11 October 2021 07:55
To: Digest recipients <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Digest for competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic
|
competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com
|
Google Groups
|
|
Topic digest
View all topics
· Digest for competition-corner-participant-discussion@googlegroups. |
"david_...@yahoo.com" <david_...@yahoo.com>: Oct 14 10:20PM
Also I'll comment briefly on Gabriella and István's comments. BTW do you prefer Gabriella or Gabi?
I do think it is important to identify what resources are currently out there--AoPS, Math Circles, etc. I would probably start by talking to the people who run the various efforts to get their thoughts. I would approach it from the perspective of augmenting, not replacing, the current efforts of others. Nurturing math talent after it has been discovered is something I think a journal could help a lot with--but that may be only my personal bias.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 7:35 PM, Gabriella Pinter<gaagp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the comments and for taking the time to post.
Basically we share the sentiment. We have committed to help to bring the bookto life to document George's effort decades ago and committed to start thisplatform (which is less than adequate) but we too have a number ofparallel commitments going on. We tried to put dollar amounts on George’svision of a national Mathematics Student Journal and a North-American problemsolving competition based math talent development effort. The production ofsuch journal with appropriate content (sans competition problem component) (dependingon scope and quality) would have it's own expense. The problem competitioncomponent effort as was suggested has its own. The scope, the ways and themeans for both are up for debate. We scaled/projected the Wisconsinproblem competition effort numbers and put them out. The size of the proposedeffort startled us as well as others. (The proposed effort with grading andstrong mentoring does not scale well.) The ‘sticker shock’ may have discouragedpeople from joining this conversation.
We think that mounting a national effort to mathcentered talent development through problem solving, starting from zero in the currentlyproposed form is vastly ambitious and in fact has more of a headwind in thecurrent cultural/political landscape than it had decades ago (note that thecurrent structures of mathematics education and talent development are beingunder attack for exhibiting strong racial bias, and Walter's comment earlierthat it is culturally-politically a non-controversial, safe sphere may not becorrect).
An attempt for a freely and widely accessible resource tostrengthen the scale and quality of mathematical talent development eitherneeds to be large and centralized, (with governmental support), or it needs tobe developed organically and be aimed at complementing the variety of talentdevelopment initiatives currently present in the US (math circles, AoPS, a variety of year-round and summer math campsand math competitions, Julia Robinson Math Festivals, Brilliant, expii, COMAPmath modeling competitions for middle and high school, SIAM modeling competition, WI Talent Search, MITPrimes, RSI, etc....). Yes, the journal would need enthusiasticvolunteers. There are a number of those around and many of them are alreadyactive in different initiatives that reach segments of the middle school highschool student population. We think George argues that the organic, incremental(and patchwork) approach is not sufficiently effective, leaves out very largeswatches of the student population, and for the scale necessary it cannot fullyrely on voluntarism, and it needs consistent funding.
However, it seems that a more organic approach is moreappealing to the group here and it seems more viable. What would it look like? Whatdo you think is reasonable to start with?
David mentioned commitment from people in academia. This canmost certainly be secured but people would need to know what to commit to. Stateuniversities are not in a very good condition right now, at least here inWisconsin. Graduate and undergraduate students may provide some workforce, but atUWM teaching assistants earn 15K for 9 months and most of our undergrads areworking in outside jobs to support their studies. So it’s unlikely that we can getvolunteer support from our university.
We’d be happy to talk if there’s interest or continue theconversation here.
Gabriella and Istvan
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:27:23 AM UTC-5 david_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi JC,
Thanks for these comments--it is good to have a new voice joining the discussion!
Just to clarify my own level of commitment--I am potentially willing to commit both my time (as a part time, not full time, volunteer) and my money (not beyond low five figures) to this project.
However almost everyone who has opined on this project, including you, seems to agree on one point: for this project to succeed it is going to require buy-in from unis and/or high schools--probably both. I also agree. However, that is, unfortunately, what I do not bring to the table: I can bring some time and some money to this project, but I'm not in an academic career myself. For the project to succeed, I think it will take someone from academia willing to also commit to the project. That person might not necessarily be making a huge time investment, but they would need to be willing to lend their name--and, by extension, the name of their uni--to the project. I think it will take someone with the relative security of tenure and with ten years or more to go before retirement.
There may well be people in this group who match these criteria--or, if they have less than ten years to retirement, at least have enough years left before retirement to help get the project well started before they switch to emeritus status. Unfortunately I'm not such a person myself. I would not necessarily expect a huge time commitment from such a person, but it would need to be someone we can call up at any time and get at least a few minutes of their time if their support is needed.
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-7 JC TOWNEND wrote:
Hi friends and allies,
I have really enjoyed this trip down memory lane, and the idea of trying to re-establish some similar competition for young people going forward. However, the group seems a bit haphazard and the setup on Google groups with random emails and unorganized threads is challenging.
If we are going to go forward effectively, it’s clear there are 3 streams: a stream dedicated to the pursuit of establishing a new competition, possibly a stream creating fun and interesting problems amongst ourselves, and a stream creating potential problems for students once item 1 is complete.
I am interested only in stream 1. However, I agree with others that the idea that this would cost $500k-$1 million per year seems extreme. Especially if we are able to get volunteers, of which I could imagine there would be hundreds available who would be dedicated to the pursuit. And I’m concerned thatpeople willing to invest significant sums (in the 5 digits) are dropping out. Stream 1 requires a real leader who has time to dedicate a large amount of time to the pursuit, and will organize some meetings of interested parties or members where we can talk live and quickly get through ideas.
The first requirement is a thorough review of what is already available to high school students, and what is missing. Do we have connections to current mathematics teachers at the high school level? It also needs to be modernized with the problems of the day – how to prevent online cheating, which is so much easier than it was 40 years ago. I expect it would be best hosted by a university with a passionate professor and grad students who get just some seed funding. And before going grandiose with the travel and rewards, it has to be tested in concept. Also recognize there will be child protection issues that need to be built in, hence collaboration with schools and unis is a better setup than corporations. And finally, this is only worth pursuing if it is sustainable – that means it cannot be led for 3-4 years with passion and die out when the driver is missing. It also means it cannot rely on £1 million/year corporate funding – which is fickle. It needs to be inexpensive enough to be able to find funding consistently for 10-20 years, and needs an establishment that does not require the consistent passion of a single person, but that can be transitioned over the years.
I think this is an amazing opportunity. I do not have time to lead it. I hope someone does.
Kind regards,
-JC
JC Townend /CEO, UK & IRELAND
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
T +44 (0) 20 7332 7832
Assistant:Eleni.L...@lhh.com T +44 (0) 7467 753219
55 Gracechurch Street, London EC3V 0EE
Please note that I may work outside of normal office hours – however this does not mean I expect you to respond outside ofyour working hours.
From: competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 11 October 2021 07:55
To: Digest recipients <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Digest for competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic
|
competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com
|
Google Groups
|
|
Topic digest
View all topics
· Digest for competition-corner-participant-discussion@googlegroups. com - 5 updates in 1 topic - 2 Updates
Digest for competition-corner-participant-discussion@googlegroups. com - 5 updates in 1 topic
|
"Lin Gold" <lingol...@netzero.net>: Oct 10 06:45PM
OK, I've regrettably asked for "No email" status from this group. Although I was willing tocontribute some money to George's project, like George, I've had to change my mind whensomeone thinks it takes $500,000 or so per year to do the project and nobody thinksdifferently. As for the math problems, I don't do them anymore (maybe some AI discussionwould be interesting, but that's probably another group.) Let's see if my "No email" status works. Lin
---------- Original Message ----------
From: competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com
To: Digest recipients <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Digest for competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 1 topic
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 06:54:14 +0000
competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com Google Groups Topic digest
View all topics finite field problem - 5 Updates
finite field problem Walter Effross <eff...@wcl.american.edu>: Oct 09 11:21AM
I'm still getting the messages.
Several times, I've tried to unsubscribe by sending an e-mail to the address listed for that; each time, I get back a message saying that it's invalid because I'm not a member.
Best regards,
Walter
________________________________
From: 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 10:53 PM
To: Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite field problem
It might be good if Walter verified this--or at least if he verifies if it did not work since he wouldn't see this if it did! I'm still seeing the total number of members as 116 which is the number it has been for a little while now.
Also if you click on 'My membership settings' you can adjust the amount of email you get from GG. If someone wants to occasionally check in on how this discussion is going but wants to minimize spam, they can adjust the settings to get less or no email when people make postings.
On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 6:23:26 PM UTC-7 igl...@gmail.com wrote:
I do think it worked. You are not in the member list any more.
On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 4:38:00 PM UTC-5 Walter Effross wrote:
Could someone please unsubscribe me?
I've tried the instructions at the bottom of these e-mails, but I'm still in the loop.
I'm still happy to talk about the project, going forward.
Thank you!
Walter
________________________________
From: 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:29 PM
To: Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite field problem
There are, I believe, many possibilities for p(x) that will work, but some are easier to prove than others. Yes, x^10+x^3+1 is irreducible over GF(2) and proving that is one important step. It does then follow that 1, x, x^2, ..., x^9 form a basis but unfortunately this basis is not in the form that we are asked to find a basis. If p(x)=x^7 works, we'd have to somehow prove that x^7, x^14, x^28, x^56, ..., x^3584 form a basis. I'm not sure that you've proved that. It may very well be true--I haven't worked out the details but do know that there are a significant number of polynomials p(x) that work--there is not just one unique solution. However I believe there may be other polynomials p(x) which work and which require much less rote arithmetic (computation) to prove.
On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 1:33:11 PM UTC-7 t...@bellefleurbooks.com wrote:
Dear David:
My inclination was wrong. Step 1 was a waste of effort. When you skip
step 1, step 2 amounts to computing p(x) assuming that 1, x, x^2, . . .
, x^9 form a basis. There are multiple possibilities for p here, the
simplest being p(x) = x^7. Nevertheless, you still have to prove that
1, x, x^2, . . . , x^9 form a basis (step 3) which is equivalent to
proving that x^10+x^3+1 cannot be factored.
You have much the same issue (step 3) in your approach. You state that
x^9+x^7+x^6+x^3+1 is not 1, but it could be equal to 1 if
x^9+x^7+x^6+x^3 = 0, i.e., if the two polynomials, x^9+x^7+x^6+x^3 and
x^10+x^3+1 shared a common factor. In fact, they do not, but you have
to prove as much.
Proving that x^10+x^3+1 cannot be factored, or something like this, is
something to look for in the proofs submitted. It is a good problem.
Sincerely,
Tom
On 2021-10-08 12:28, 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant
Discussion wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Competition Corner Participant Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tocompetition-corner-partici...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/476565e3-22c5-4c54-9750-ba91d18f47ban%40googlegroups.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/476565e3-22c5-4c54-9750-ba91d18f47ban*40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!IaT_gp1N!i9yyLUT28okFJ7zGmjCCTokdQjR1Vxkr0oLcG72pHNrOa4co3yiR316g1aHZqOKrPg$>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Competition Corner Participant Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tocompetition-corner-partici...@googlegroups.com<mailto:competition-corner-partici...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/b4df0fe1-3e34-403a-b9bc-61364e8e2f67n%40googlegroups.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/b4df0fe1-3e34-403a-b9bc-61364e8e2f67n*40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!IaT_gp1N!iSMyVRWzY9nvxFgbciwcegiRmOKoAKZgyXYFsPQjQaLxaUpVL6Gip1F0RKq8NscBPw$>. Istvan Lauko <igl...@gmail.com>: Oct 09 10:02AM -0700
I did communicate with Walter. He is still a member, but now he does not
receive any emails.
I wander, if we should do this as a default for all, who are not active
here (would hate to generate unwanted emails for anyone). Unfortunately
there is no option for weekly or monthly "digest", only daily. |
