Contests & Programs AMC and other contests, summer programs, etc.
AMC and other contests, summer programs, etc.
3 M G
BBookmark  VNew Topic kLocked
Contests & Programs AMC and other contests, summer programs, etc.
AMC and other contests, summer programs, etc.
3 M G
BBookmark  VNew Topic kLocked
G
Topic
First Poster
Last Poster
k a My Retirement & New Leadership at AoPS
rrusczyk   1571
N Mar 26, 2025 by SmartGroot
I write today to announce my retirement as CEO from Art of Problem Solving. When I founded AoPS 22 years ago, I never imagined that we would reach so many students and families, or that we would find so many channels through which we discover, inspire, and train the great problem solvers of the next generation. I am very proud of all we have accomplished and I’m thankful for the many supporters who provided inspiration and encouragement along the way. I'm particularly grateful to all of the wonderful members of the AoPS Community!

I’m delighted to introduce our new leaders - Ben Kornell and Andrew Sutherland. Ben has extensive experience in education and edtech prior to joining AoPS as my successor as CEO, including starting like I did as a classroom teacher. He has a deep understanding of the value of our work because he’s an AoPS parent! Meanwhile, Andrew and I have common roots as founders of education companies; he launched Quizlet at age 15! His journey from founder to MIT to technology and product leader as our Chief Product Officer traces a pathway many of our students will follow in the years to come.

Thank you again for your support for Art of Problem Solving and we look forward to working with millions more wonderful problem solvers in the years to come.

And special thanks to all of the amazing AoPS team members who have helped build AoPS. We’ve come a long way from here:IMAGE
1571 replies
rrusczyk
Mar 24, 2025
SmartGroot
Mar 26, 2025
k a March Highlights and 2025 AoPS Online Class Information
jlacosta   0
Mar 2, 2025
March is the month for State MATHCOUNTS competitions! Kudos to everyone who participated in their local chapter competitions and best of luck to all going to State! Join us on March 11th for a Math Jam devoted to our favorite Chapter competition problems! Are you interested in training for MATHCOUNTS? Be sure to check out our AMC 8/MATHCOUNTS Basics and Advanced courses.

Are you ready to level up with Olympiad training? Registration is open with early bird pricing available for our WOOT programs: MathWOOT (Levels 1 and 2), CodeWOOT, PhysicsWOOT, and ChemWOOT. What is WOOT? WOOT stands for Worldwide Online Olympiad Training and is a 7-month high school math Olympiad preparation and testing program that brings together many of the best students from around the world to learn Olympiad problem solving skills. Classes begin in September!

Do you have plans this summer? There are so many options to fit your schedule and goals whether attending a summer camp or taking online classes, it can be a great break from the routine of the school year. Check out our summer courses at AoPS Online, or if you want a math or language arts class that doesn’t have homework, but is an enriching summer experience, our AoPS Virtual Campus summer camps may be just the ticket! We are expanding our locations for our AoPS Academies across the country with 15 locations so far and new campuses opening in Saratoga CA, Johns Creek GA, and the Upper West Side NY. Check out this page for summer camp information.

Be sure to mark your calendars for the following events:
[list][*]March 5th (Wednesday), 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, HCSSiM Math Jam 2025. Amber Verser, Assistant Director of the Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics, will host an information session about HCSSiM, a summer program for high school students.
[*]March 6th (Thursday), 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Free Webinar on Math Competitions from elementary through high school. Join us for an enlightening session that demystifies the world of math competitions and helps you make informed decisions about your contest journey.
[*]March 11th (Tuesday), 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, 2025 MATHCOUNTS Chapter Discussion MATH JAM. AoPS instructors will discuss some of their favorite problems from the MATHCOUNTS Chapter Competition. All are welcome!
[*]March 13th (Thursday), 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Free Webinar about Summer Camps at the Virtual Campus. Transform your summer into an unforgettable learning adventure! From elementary through high school, we offer dynamic summer camps featuring topics in mathematics, language arts, and competition preparation - all designed to fit your schedule and ignite your passion for learning.[/list]
Our full course list for upcoming classes is below:
All classes run 7:30pm-8:45pm ET/4:30pm - 5:45pm PT unless otherwise noted.

Introductory: Grades 5-10

Prealgebra 1 Self-Paced

Prealgebra 1
Sunday, Mar 2 - Jun 22
Friday, Mar 28 - Jul 18
Sunday, Apr 13 - Aug 10
Tuesday, May 13 - Aug 26
Thursday, May 29 - Sep 11
Sunday, Jun 15 - Oct 12
Monday, Jun 30 - Oct 20
Wednesday, Jul 16 - Oct 29

Prealgebra 2 Self-Paced

Prealgebra 2
Tuesday, Mar 25 - Jul 8
Sunday, Apr 13 - Aug 10
Wednesday, May 7 - Aug 20
Monday, Jun 2 - Sep 22
Sunday, Jun 29 - Oct 26
Friday, Jul 25 - Nov 21


Introduction to Algebra A Self-Paced

Introduction to Algebra A
Sunday, Mar 23 - Jul 20
Monday, Apr 7 - Jul 28
Sunday, May 11 - Sep 14 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Wednesday, May 14 - Aug 27
Friday, May 30 - Sep 26
Monday, Jun 2 - Sep 22
Sunday, Jun 15 - Oct 12
Thursday, Jun 26 - Oct 9
Tuesday, Jul 15 - Oct 28

Introduction to Counting & Probability Self-Paced

Introduction to Counting & Probability
Sunday, Mar 16 - Jun 8
Wednesday, Apr 16 - Jul 2
Thursday, May 15 - Jul 31
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Wednesday, Jul 9 - Sep 24
Sunday, Jul 27 - Oct 19

Introduction to Number Theory
Monday, Mar 17 - Jun 9
Thursday, Apr 17 - Jul 3
Friday, May 9 - Aug 1
Wednesday, May 21 - Aug 6
Monday, Jun 9 - Aug 25
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14
Tuesday, Jul 15 - Sep 30

Introduction to Algebra B Self-Paced

Introduction to Algebra B
Sunday, Mar 2 - Jun 22
Wednesday, Apr 16 - Jul 30
Tuesday, May 6 - Aug 19
Wednesday, Jun 4 - Sep 17
Sunday, Jun 22 - Oct 19
Friday, Jul 18 - Nov 14

Introduction to Geometry
Tuesday, Mar 4 - Aug 12
Sunday, Mar 23 - Sep 21
Wednesday, Apr 23 - Oct 1
Sunday, May 11 - Nov 9
Tuesday, May 20 - Oct 28
Monday, Jun 16 - Dec 8
Friday, Jun 20 - Jan 9
Sunday, Jun 29 - Jan 11
Monday, Jul 14 - Jan 19

Intermediate: Grades 8-12

Intermediate Algebra
Sunday, Mar 16 - Sep 14
Tuesday, Mar 25 - Sep 2
Monday, Apr 21 - Oct 13
Sunday, Jun 1 - Nov 23
Tuesday, Jun 10 - Nov 18
Wednesday, Jun 25 - Dec 10
Sunday, Jul 13 - Jan 18
Thursday, Jul 24 - Jan 22

Intermediate Counting & Probability
Sunday, Mar 23 - Aug 3
Wednesday, May 21 - Sep 17
Sunday, Jun 22 - Nov 2

Intermediate Number Theory
Friday, Apr 11 - Jun 27
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Wednesday, Jun 18 - Sep 3

Precalculus
Sunday, Mar 16 - Aug 24
Wednesday, Apr 9 - Sep 3
Friday, May 16 - Oct 24
Sunday, Jun 1 - Nov 9
Monday, Jun 30 - Dec 8

Advanced: Grades 9-12

Olympiad Geometry
Wednesday, Mar 5 - May 21
Tuesday, Jun 10 - Aug 26

Calculus
Sunday, Mar 30 - Oct 5
Tuesday, May 27 - Nov 11
Wednesday, Jun 25 - Dec 17

Group Theory
Thursday, Jun 12 - Sep 11

Contest Preparation: Grades 6-12

MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Basics
Sunday, Mar 23 - Jun 15
Wednesday, Apr 16 - Jul 2
Friday, May 23 - Aug 15
Monday, Jun 2 - Aug 18
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Advanced
Friday, Apr 11 - Jun 27
Sunday, May 11 - Aug 10
Tuesday, May 27 - Aug 12
Wednesday, Jun 11 - Aug 27
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

AMC 10 Problem Series
Tuesday, Mar 4 - May 20
Monday, Mar 31 - Jun 23
Friday, May 9 - Aug 1
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Tuesday, Jun 17 - Sep 2
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Monday, Jun 23 - Sep 15
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

AMC 10 Final Fives
Sunday, May 11 - Jun 8
Tuesday, May 27 - Jun 17
Monday, Jun 30 - Jul 21

AMC 12 Problem Series
Tuesday, May 27 - Aug 12
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Wednesday, Aug 6 - Oct 22

AMC 12 Final Fives
Sunday, May 18 - Jun 15

F=ma Problem Series
Wednesday, Jun 11 - Aug 27

WOOT Programs
Visit the pages linked for full schedule details for each of these programs!


MathWOOT Level 1
MathWOOT Level 2
ChemWOOT
CodeWOOT
PhysicsWOOT

Programming

Introduction to Programming with Python
Monday, Mar 24 - Jun 16
Thursday, May 22 - Aug 7
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Tuesday, Jun 17 - Sep 2
Monday, Jun 30 - Sep 22

Intermediate Programming with Python
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Monday, Jun 30 - Sep 22

USACO Bronze Problem Series
Tuesday, May 13 - Jul 29
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 1

Physics

Introduction to Physics
Sunday, Mar 30 - Jun 22
Wednesday, May 21 - Aug 6
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14
Monday, Jun 23 - Sep 15

Physics 1: Mechanics
Tuesday, Mar 25 - Sep 2
Thursday, May 22 - Oct 30
Monday, Jun 23 - Dec 15

Relativity
Sat & Sun, Apr 26 - Apr 27 (4:00 - 7:00 pm ET/1:00 - 4:00pm PT)
Mon, Tue, Wed & Thurs, Jun 23 - Jun 26 (meets every day of the week!)
0 replies
jlacosta
Mar 2, 2025
0 replies
Orange MOP Opportunity
blueprimes   8
N an hour ago by ethan2011
Hello AoPS,

A reputable source that is of a certain credibility has communicated me about details of Orange MOP, a new pathway to qualify for MOP. In particular, 3 rounds of a 10-problem proof-style examination, covering a variety of mathematical topics that requires proofs will be held from September 27, 2025 12:00 AM - November 8, 2025 11:59 PM EST. Each round will occur biweekly on a Saturday starting from September 27 as described above. The deadline for late submissions will be November 20, 2025 11:59 PM EST.

Solutions can be either handwritten or typed digitally with $\LaTeX$. If you are sending solutions digitally through physical scan, please make sure your handwriting is eligible. Inability to discern hand-written solutions may warrant point deductions.

As for rules, digital resources and computational intelligence systems are allowed. Textbooks, reference handouts, and calculators are also a freedom provided by the MAA.

The link is said to be posted on the MAA website during the summer, and invites aspiring math students of all grade levels to participate. As for scoring, solutions will be graded on a $10$-point scale, and solutions will be graded in terms of both elegance and correctness.

As for qualification for further examinations, the Orange MOP examination passes both the AIME and USAJMO/USAMO requirement thresholds, and the top 5 scorers will receive the benefits and prestige of participating at the national level in the MOP program, and possibly the USA TST and the USA IMO team.

I implore you to consider this rare oppourtunity.

Warm wishes.
8 replies
1 viewing
blueprimes
4 hours ago
ethan2011
an hour ago
New Competition Series: The Million!
Mathdreams   5
N 3 hours ago by jkim0656
Hello AOPS Community,

Recently, me and my friend compiled a set of the most high quality problems from our imagination into a problem set called the Million. This series has three contests, called the whun, thousand and Million respectively.

Unfortunately, it did not get the love it deserved on the OTIS discord. Hence, we post it here to share these problems with the AOPS community and hopefully allow all of you to enjoy these very interesting problems.

Good luck! Lastly, remember that MILLION ORZ!

Edit: We have just been informed this will be the Orange MOP series. Please pay close attention to these problems!
5 replies
Mathdreams
3 hours ago
jkim0656
3 hours ago
MOP Cutoffs Out?
Mathandski   24
N 4 hours ago by smbellanki
MAA has just emailed a press release announcing the formula they will be using this year to come up with the MOP cutoff that applies to you! Here's the process:

1. Multiply your age by $1434$, let $n$ be the result.

2. Calculate $\varphi(n)$, where $\varphi$ is the Euler's totient theorem, which calculates the number of integers less than $n$ relatively prime to $n$.

3. Multiply your result by $1434$ again because why not, let the result be $m$.

4. Define the Fibonacci sequence $F_0 = 1, F_1 = 1, F_n = F_{n-1} + F_{n-2}$ for $n \ge 2$. Let $r$ be the remainder $F_m$ leaves when you divide it by $69$.

5. Let $x$ be your predicted USA(J)MO score.

6. You will be invited if your score is at least $\lfloor \frac{x + \sqrt[r]{r^2} + r \ln(r)}{r} \rfloor$.

7. Note that there may be additional age restrictions for non-high schoolers.

See here for MAA's original news message.

Edit (4/2/2025): This was an April Fool's post. A proof that this algorithm will (nearly) always yield a cutoff of one more than your AMO score will be posted shortly.
24 replies
Mathandski
Yesterday at 11:02 PM
smbellanki
4 hours ago
2025 USAMO Rubric
plang2008   12
N 4 hours ago by Ilikeminecraft
1. Let $k$ and $d$ be positive integers. Prove that there exists a positive integer $N$ such that for every odd integer $n>N$, the digits in the base-$2n$ representation of $n^k$ are all greater than $d$.

Rubric for Problem 1

2. Let $n$ and $k$ be positive integers with $k<n$. Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $n$ with real coefficients, nonzero constant term, and no repeated roots. Suppose that for any real numbers $a_0,\,a_1,\,\ldots,\,a_k$ such that the polynomial $a_kx^k+\cdots+a_1x+a_0$ divides $P(x)$, the product $a_0a_1\cdots a_k$ is zero. Prove that $P(x)$ has a nonreal root.

Rubric for Problem 2

3. Alice the architect and Bob the builder play a game. First, Alice chooses two points $P$ and $Q$ in the plane and a subset $\mathcal{S}$ of the plane, which are announced to Bob. Next, Bob marks infinitely many points in the plane, designating each a city. He may not place two cities within distance at most one unit of each other, and no three cities he places may be collinear. Finally, roads are constructed between the cities as follows: for each pair $A,\,B$ of cities, they are connected with a road along the line segment $AB$ if and only if the following condition holds:
[center]For every city $C$ distinct from $A$ and $B$, there exists $R\in\mathcal{S}$ such[/center]
[center]that $\triangle PQR$ is directly similar to either $\triangle ABC$ or $\triangle BAC$.[/center]
Alice wins the game if (i) the resulting roads allow for travel between any pair of cities via a finite sequence of roads and (ii) no two roads cross. Otherwise, Bob wins. Determine, with proof, which player has a winning strategy.

Note: $\triangle UVW$ is directly similar to $\triangle XYZ$ if there exists a sequence of rotations, translations, and dilations sending $U$ to $X$, $V$ to $Y$, and $W$ to $Z$.

Rubric for Problem 3

4. Let $H$ be the orthocenter of acute triangle $ABC$, let $F$ be the foot of the altitude from $C$ to $AB$, and let $P$ be the reflection of $H$ across $BC$. Suppose that the circumcircle of triangle $AFP$ intersects line $BC$ at two distinct points $X$ and $Y$. Prove that $C$ is the midpoint of $XY$.

Rubric for Problem 4

5. Determine, with proof, all positive integers $k$ such that \[\frac{1}{n+1} \sum_{i=0}^n \binom{n}{i}^k\]is an integer for every positive integer $n$.

Rubric for Problem 5

6. Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers with $m\geq n$. There are $m$ cupcakes of different flavors arranged around a circle and $n$ people who like cupcakes. Each person assigns a nonnegative real number score to each cupcake, depending on how much they like the cupcake. Suppose that for each person $P$, it is possible to partition the circle of $m$ cupcakes into $n$ groups of consecutive cupcakes so that the sum of $P$'s scores of the cupcakes in each group is at least $1$. Prove that it is possible to distribute the $m$ cupcakes to the $n$ people so that each person $P$ receives cupcakes of total score at least $1$ with respect to $P$.

Rubric for Problem 6
12 replies
plang2008
6 hours ago
Ilikeminecraft
4 hours ago
No more topics!
Olympiad Prep
tzhang1   38
N Nov 4, 2022 by guptaamitu1
In studying for the USAMO, and this probably has been posted many times before, but what should I do first? Algebra is my strongest subject, and in the camp Awesome Math, I have been exposed to many induction proofs, slightly basic, but still I want to find out what I should do next.
38 replies
tzhang1
Jul 28, 2011
guptaamitu1
Nov 4, 2022
Olympiad Prep
G H J
G H BBookmark kLocked kLocked NReply
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
tzhang1
664 posts
#1 • 7 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 5 other users
In studying for the USAMO, and this probably has been posted many times before, but what should I do first? Algebra is my strongest subject, and in the camp Awesome Math, I have been exposed to many induction proofs, slightly basic, but still I want to find out what I should do next.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pythag011
2453 posts
#2 • 42 Y
Y by jatin, yugrey, henrikjb, sicilianfan, droid347, Mathaddict11, 62861, ImpossibleCube, brianapa, Dodo2009, tenplusten, Wizard_32, ayan_mathematics_king, RamK, Kayak, OliverA, megarnie, OlympusHero, tigerzhang, rayfish, peelybonehead, mathleticguyyy, Adventure10, Mango247, and 18 other users
Learn how to learn. Then you can do whatever you want.

Seriously, this is the best way.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
mario123
232 posts
#3 • 3 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 1 other user
pythag011 wrote:
Learn how to learn. Then you can do whatever you want.

Seriously, this is the best way.

Pythag, did you go through any books or take any courses for olympiad prep?
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
antimonyarsenide
875 posts
#4 • 7 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 5 other users
tzhang1 wrote:
In studying for the USAMO, and this probably has been posted many times before, but what should I do first? Algebra is my strongest subject, and in the camp Awesome Math, I have been exposed to many induction proofs, slightly basic, but still I want to find out what I should do next.
Well, if you've registered for WOOT, that's probably a good start (this year's topics seem to be okay for starting people).
I think everyone has a different learning pattern that works best for them. So I guess, like pythag011 says, first learn what the best way for you to learn is, and everything else will work well.

For example, some people find that immediately starting to tackle proof problems, starting with basic ones and progressing, gives them the most stable and practical learning. But for many people it's good to read up on, or take a class in, some topic before they start doing problems.
If you do want to do problems, I guess starting with the first 1-3 in each subject in each year's IMO shortlist would be decent practice, but I've found that they're actually easier than most USAMO problems (and the later shortlist problems are harder than most USAMO problems, for me). So the best way might be to find a math coach to give you proof problems in subjects you need to practice in.

For me, I've always been relatively strong in combinatorics, and I thought I was decent at geometry, until I started doing IMO shortlists and noticed how inadequate school geometry was (I mean, it's definitely better than school number theory, but still not very complete). So now I'm reading up on geometry articles (in the Olympiad Articles subforum). On the other hand, I've always thought I was bad at number theory, but I progressed through most concepts I need rather quickly this summer (granted, I could and should still try to improve). And I organized a summer program teaching number theory to local math kids, during which my algebra happened to improve from listening to a guest speaking friend of mine teach algebra at my program :lol:

So, find the best way to learn for you, and then learn everything else. Good luck! (Well, I don't know how good my advice is, since I haven't tested it on a real USAMO yet, but I hope it's good ;) )
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
LiBoy
695 posts
#5 • 15 Y
Y by OliverA, OlympusHero, Adventure10, and 12 other users
pythag011 wrote:
Learn how to learn. Then you can do whatever you want.

Seriously, this is the best way.

Whatever you want... as in starcraft?
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
trigonometry456103
349 posts
#6 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10 and 1 other user
I think u should join WOOT.
I'm going to join WOOT.
If you cannot join WOOT for any reason, then I would recommend starting with the earlier ISL+canadian MO problems, since they tend to be closer to AIME level but with some olympiad aspects.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
greatwhiteshark98
1017 posts
#7 • 3 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 1 other user
pythag011 wrote:
Learn how to learn. Then you can do whatever you want.

Seriously, this is the best way.

Words of knowledge from a math beast. :)

The thing is, if you can't learn, you can't do anything. Like many people have already said, find the best style of learning for you. For someone like David Yang, it may be playing Starcraft. For others, it may be studying math whenever they can.

In essence (this is my opinion), winning competitions and gaining prestige isn't the pinnacle of learning. The pinnacle of learning is learning itself. When you master learning, you can do whatever you want. Succeeding at Olympiads included. :wink:
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pythag011
2453 posts
#8 • 10 Y
Y by OlympusHero, Adventure10, and 8 other users
greatwhiteshark98 wrote:
For someone like David Yang, it may be playing Starcraft.

lol, I don't spend all of my time playing Starcraft. I do a lot more math than Starcraft, but I think the way you learn Starcraft is very similar to the way you learn math (Amusingly, I figured out how to learn math somewhat from this; and apparently Ben Gunby figured out how to learn starcraft because I told him it was like learning math.)

@mario: Yes several.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
AwesomeToad
4535 posts
#9 • 10 Y
Y by z0k, OlympusHero, Adventure10, Mango247, and 6 other users
In studying for the USAMO, and this probably has been posted many times before, but what should I do first?[/hide]

Are you studying to make the USAMO? Or to make MOP? If you are studying to make the USAMO, then go straight ahead, since you have already seen the real AIME. However, since, as you said, this has been posted many times, you should probably search on AoPS for many informative threads. 1=2 here has included a nice list of links to threads on AMC, AIME, and olympiad prep. I would focus more on geometry and counting/probability since those tend to be quite common on the AIME. Number/theory and algebra you should not neglect by any means, but number theory is pretty uncommon on the AIME (by itself anyway) and algebra, being your strongest subject, you do not need to work so much on it now.

However, if you are talking about doing well on USAMO, I would say slow down and work on AIME first. A person (no offense) should not try to go from a 1 on the AIME to making MOP. (The possible exception is if you just made a whole bunch of stupid mistakes, and "should have gotten" a 6 or 7 or higher or something, which is similar to what I did. (7 - 4 = 3) Even so, your prep should be a mix of both USA(J)MO and AIME prep.) Slow down and work on AIME prep first. For easier AIME questions, I would start on earlier AIMEs (in my opinion, the hardest questions on 1980s AIMEs are around more recent 6-10 level) and possibly harder AMC 10/12 questions. For AIME questions in the 6-10 range, I suggest working harder early AIME problems, modern 6-10s, HMMT problems (1-5s or so; search on google for the problems) and for harder ones, well, modern harder AIME problems, and the later HMMT problems. Aside from AIME, for AIME prep, HMMT problems have no equals in my opinion. Some people say that you should start olympiad problems, but if you were like I was once and can't make nontrivial progress on any olympiad problems, you are likely to get discouraged, so I would hold off on that.

This post is already pretty long, so I won't say too much more. But go to http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=401640&p=2237216 to find other threads.

Algebra is my strongest subject, and in the camp Awesome Math, I have been exposed to many induction proofs, slightly basic, but still I want to find out what I should do next.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
mathlearner
146 posts
#10 • 3 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 1 other user
Pythag - could you please elaborate on your answer to Mario's question - as in "which books and classes/courses specifically did you use. and which of those do you think helped you the most to reach the level of success/knowledge you have today?" I mean, no one comes out of the womb acing Olympiad level proofs/math! (Sure, some may have a genetic disposition towards having an innate ability to learn certain subject matter more easily than others, but even the most gifted have to go through a learning process/curve.) Wouldn't you agree? Thanks for the hoped for elaboration.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pythag011
2453 posts
#11 • 15 Y
Y by Achintski_Y_, OliverA, OlympusHero, Adventure10, Mango247, and 10 other users
The reason why I commented so briefly is because I feel people focus on resources too much. Yes they are very helpful, but there are people who don't read many books who are significantly better than most of the people who do.

Here's a list of some:

WOOT
The Probabilistic Method by Spencer and Alon (Not actually very helpful, but it's a fun book to read. And it teaches you the probabilistic method, and the number of olympiad problems solved with the prob. method is too large to list.)
Russian Olympiads.

Perhaps much more important is other stuff.

The most obvious difference between IMO team members and most not-as-good-people is that IMO contestants aren't afraid of doing problems harder than what they usually do. Don't worry about stuff being too hard, (And don't worry about stuff being too easy either, just make it harder.)
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
EmptySet
59 posts
#12 • 4 Y
Y by AyanKhan1729, Adventure10, Mango247, and 1 other user
Since we're talking about olympiads here, I should probably mention proof writing. Many olympiad newbies will write "proofs" to problems that they think are rigorous, but are actually full of holes. Being able to confirm that your proof is complete, and furthermore, clearly convincing the graders of this, is a crucial first step to success in olympiads. This will probably require some interactive feedback to perfect (i.e., more than just a book). I handled this by looking at some of the easier USAMO problems from previous years, solving them, and writing up the solutions. I then double and triple checked them and ran them by everyone I knew who understood it.

Aside from this, do lots and lots of problems. The more you can familiarize yourself with the common strategies and ways of thinking that work, the more likely you will be able to crack harder and harder problems.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
AwesomeToad
4535 posts
#13 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
EmptySet wrote:
Since we're talking about olympiads here, I should probably mention proof writing. Many olympiad newbies will write "proofs" to problems that they think are rigorous, but are actually full of holes. Being able to confirm that your proof is complete, and furthermore, clearly convincing the graders of this, is a crucial first step to success in olympiads.

Hi,

so how important is this to get down right now? I've got a year (a little less) to learn to do USAMO stuff, but since I can't do a lot of USAMO 1/4s (although I can do some of them), is it more important to learn to solve them or to learn to write?
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
zero.destroyer
813 posts
#14 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
@AwesomeToad: Although it's still important to learn how to write, in your situation, I think you should get down the olympiad solving first. You're enrolled in WOOT (I think?), so you should be able to learn a bit of proof-writing. You definitely should still learn how to rigorize it sometime, but after you're comfortable with problem solving. Face it; you can't even write up a proof if you could never solve it. Besides, after solving some problems and looking at the solutions, you'll pick up the rigorizing part.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
MellowMelon
5850 posts
#15 • 258 Y
Y by orl, tzhang1, Pina1234, hrithikguy, Asmodeus1123, profmusic, pythag011, jatin, gapoc459, alphabeta1729, airplanes1, antimonyarsenide, AbsoluteFriend, rdj5933mile5, AwesomeToad, giratina150, sinhaarunabh, azhou4, Zhero, SET2012, tim9099xxzz, El_Ectric, ksun48, Hydroxide, Binomial-theorem, ben7, MathWhizzz, math154, ProblemSolver1026, planetpeter91, Fullstop, r31415, greatwhiteshark98, anwang16, henrikjb, djb86, professordad, sicilianfan, fz0718, tastymath75025, crastybow, mathleto1, ahaanomegas, 171282, etude, thkim1011, brandbest1, bestwillcui1, shivangjindal, minimario, mathman523, pineappotato, TheMaskedMagician, blueflute19, HYP135peppers, mathisfun7, infiniteturtle, wangth100, mrowhed, stan23456, zmyshatlp, ronayw, droid347, ralph4imo, Bob_Smith, hamup1, DrMath, DivideBy0, derpyuniverse, ogunasekara, mathsolver101, C-bass, abishek99, devenware, hwl0304, Anish_S, azmath333, WalkerTesla, UrInvalid, abk2015, Mathaddict11, 62861, mathwizard888, ac_math, MATH1945, huricane, checkmatetang, FTW, kapilpavase, vishy, sciencelord, dawbyrd, ChrisMandelaJunior, ImpossibleCube, mj434, Plasma_Vortex, jam10307, mxgo, Magikarp1, claserken, memc38123, saagar, m1234567, Wave-Particle, Gibby, brianapa, m-c-geometry, LunarLlama, Swag00, tarzanjunior, Math_Magicians, sinx, vsathiam, goseahawks, v_Enhance, Achintski_Y_, Wavefunction, tenplusten, JasperL, niyu, Kayak, Iamawesome1, Meriyeem01, green_dog_7983, TheMagician, owm, mickeydomath, paurm, NuclearFusion, pilover123, 277546, Frestho, notharsh, tapir1729, Bad_Math, pengpeng, mathlogician, Ultroid999OCPN, shankarmath, PiMath12345, Spacesam, countdown1234, fatant, Ancy, Williamgolly, MathPro1441, wpix1234, Joseph2531, myh2910, Stormersyle, Minusonetwelfth, AntaraDey, AopsUser101, mathgirl199, candyofthesun, Epic_Dabber, yeskay, pinkvf68, shihabx, tree_3, amuthup, oneteen11, skonar, heheXD1, vsamc, agneg05, Atpar, Zorger74, ghu2024, SBose, intergalacticmongoose, SAMANTAP, Shivaani, Pitagar, enzoP14, sotpidot, Juno, SuperJJ, etr217, Alyna.ra, Rubikscube3.1415, HamstPan38825, bluelinfish, Pascal96, spicemax, IceWolf10, ChromeRaptor777, bigbrain123, tigerzhang, Equinox8, OliverA, megarnie, andyloo666, OlympusHero, player01, Grizzy, rayfish, MTbV, Flying-Man, Abhinav_268, wasikgcrushedbi, FIREDRAGONMATH16, CyclicISLscelesTrapezoid, jessiewang28, polynomialian, Luglestisgulf, rowechen, prithvi05prism, Jndd, DepressedCubic, Mogmog8, Coco7, feliciaxu, skyguy88, J55406, mahaler, peelybonehead, eagles2018, spiritshine1234, Adventure10, Mango247, LostInBali, theSpider, and 35 other users
Blarg I got jumped by a whole bunch of people in writing this, but I don't think I'm just restating anything here...

Re above about proof writing: there's no reason you can't work on solving and writing at the same time. Write out solutions to the problems you think you've solved while practicing, and later find someone who knows their stuff to check what you did.
pythag011 wrote:
lol, I don't spend all of my time playing Starcraft. I do a lot more math than Starcraft, but I think the way you learn Starcraft is very similar to the way you learn math (Amusingly, I figured out how to learn math somewhat from this; and apparently Ben Gunby figured out how to learn starcraft because I told him it was like learning math.)
I think you can replace Starcraft and math with anything seriously competitive. In all of the competition-like things I've ever pushed myself to improve in, the same things apply: learn the fundamentals before memorizing advanced tricks, spend a lot of time playing/solving, and actually use that time correctly - take a hard look at every game/problem you finish to figure out what you need to improve. I'm sure there's more too.

Specifically applying the three things I mentioned above to math (but again, probably more can be said):

1. Fundamentals before advanced stuff. As an example, learning inequalities. Just learning what AM-GM/Cauchy are and how to solve some simple problems that use them is a bad idea (see the 2nd paragraph of this post for what the US IMO team leader thinks of that). You should know AM-GM and Cauchy of course, but you can't stop there. There are basic algebraic manipulations you have to know how to do, which you generally pick up by doing enough problems to have encountered them all. In general, thinking that you couldn't solve a problem (like USAMO 1 this year for instance) because you didn't know some high-powered result and that you should start practicing everything from Rearrangement to Popoviciu is a terrible, terrible idea.

2. Every time one of these threads about improving comes up, the answer is the same: do lots of problems. The sooner you realize there is no way around this the better. Books like ACOPS, PSS, the 10x subject books will all help with this, but the Contests section here suffices if you know where to look. There are a lot of past topics here about what books/problems/olympiads are suited for various levels.

3. Learning everything you can from the problems you do. This is really important and probably most of what pythag meant when he said "learn how to learn". You can easily do hundreds of problems or every past USAMO or whatever and make less progress than someone who just does a few dozen problems the right way. Your time spent on a problem should not end once you solve it or give up. If you get stuck on a problem, make sure you've worked on the problem for a long time before you even think about looking at a solution. For olympiad problems, getting no progress in the past hour is a good rule of thumb to start with. If you do get the problem, read other solutions anyway.

Now that you've worked hard on the problem and read the solutions, ask yourself some questions. Were there any approaches you tried that neither you nor any other solutions ended up using? If so, try to understand what about that method is fundamentally unsuited to the problem. On the flip side, were there any approaches you tried, discarded because you thought they didn't work, and yet other solutions successfully used them? If so, figure out which part of the solution you got stuck on enough to make you think you weren't going anywhere. How would you change your thinking to never miss such a step in the future? Were there any approaches you didn't think of at all? Stop reading the solution there, look up some things about that approach if you're not familiar with it, and then go back and spend awhile trying to apply it to the problem yourself. (This is a much better way to learn weird tricks like Vieta jumping or Combinatorial Nullstellensatz then just looking them up after having heard of the name.)

One important thing to keep in mind while you're doing this is there is a lot more to improving than just adding to your list of known theorems or what tricks work where, because once you hit a problem that thwarts every piece of your knowledge bank you have to think of something new. So you should also be trying to build a strong intuition about the results and tricks you know or even things much vaguer than that. How fast/slow is this sequence/function allowed to grow? Do these conditions on $n$ in the problem not seem to care about anything except $n$'s residue modulo something? Does this number theory problem ever actually use the addition operation? There are some results, like the majorization condition in Muirhead or the Chinese Remainder Theorem, that are really just formalizing a piece of intuition you could easily pick up on your own from experience.

Along these lines, a problem you couldn't solve might have an incredibly long and intimidating solution, but that solution might just be the result of writing out all of the details of an idea that you could come up with in less than five minutes. For that reason, for the scarier-looking solutions, or really any solutions, you should try to understand the steps and motivations until you can state all the main ideas in a couple sentences and basically know how to solve it from that. There's a good chance this will be a lot easier to do than it looks, and it will be of tremendous help when you run into a problem that utilizes similar ideas.


You might notice that in all of this I'm suggesting that there's no reason to believe someone who claims to have done thousands of problems and know every arcane theorem and trick out there is going to be successful, and that's exactly what I intend to say. It's always discouraging to see people say that they're planning to do every problem in PSS or every IMO SL, because it sounds like they're more intent on being able to say they've done that than actually doing the problems as thoroughly as they should. Reminds me of this xkcd.


(EDIT: Took a second read and realized I implied some things I didn't mean in places.)
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by MellowMelon, Jul 30, 2011, 7:24 AM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pythag011
2453 posts
#16 • 8 Y
Y by Friedrich_Gauss, tigerzhang, megarnie, Ritwin, CyclicISLscelesTrapezoid, Adventure10, theSpider, and 1 other user
I'm really not sure whether "learning proofwriting" actually helps in any way. I have 0 ability to write proofs and never tried to learn how to and everyone agrees that my proofwriting is terrible (most #writeups assigned at MOP) and yet I've never gotten a point deducted for a proof that 100% worked. It's not particularly helpful to be bad at communicating what you mean, but I'm not convinced that proofwriting is actually a skill that needs to be practiced.

Though I guess my idea of what rigorous is is actually usually rigorous.

On a sidenote MellowMelon's post is the most well-written and useful post I've seen regarding what to do to improve, and should probably be linked in every thread about how to improve from now on. Though I would like to add that it's not a good idea to give up when you can't think of any method that would work on the problem. I would also like to add that solving problems by going through a list of methods and thinking whether or not you want to use it is a bad idea.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
MellowMelon
5850 posts
#17 • 4 Y
Y by cloudybook, megarnie, Adventure10, and 1 other user
pythag011 wrote:
Though I would like to add that it's not a good idea to give up when you can't think of any method that would work on the problem.
Guess I was a little unclear about what I meant there; sorry about that. My intent was to say that if you go into a contest with just a bag of tricks and theorems and find a problem where none of them work, your intuition and conceptual understanding is the only thing you can fall back on, which is the reason you need to keep it sharp.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Jason27603
629 posts
#18 • 17 Y
Y by HYP135peppers, Mathaddict11, eee, Joseph2531, IceWolf10, bigbrain123, megarnie, Adventure10, Mango247, theSpider, and 7 other users
Dang, MellowMelon, that was probably the most useful/best thought out post I've ever seen on AoPS. It should probably be stickied immediately.

As for my own advice on studying for the USAMO (I hope that what I say isn't too much of a repeat of anything anyone else has said, and I hope it's not too badly written), the most important thing is to understand the MOTIVATION behind a solution. Every time you read a solution, take a few minutes (or more than a few) to try and figure out how the solver managed to find that particular solution. Sometimes, you'll read solutions that just seem to come out of nowhere, but those are few and far between. Most of the time, there was something about the problem that tipped the writer off to what methods would be useful, what methods wouldn't be useful, etc. Whenever you read a solution, try to find those triggers, and use them to reason logically through the solution. By this I mean try to see how a solution flows from one discovery of a useful observation to the next. After you've understood the motivation, add it to your mental toolbox so that you can use it later on. Only then will you improve as a problem solver. Before I started doing this, I could never understand why a writer would use a certain crux move to break open a problem, but after I started taking the time to look for the motivation, that became a lot easier for me.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
EmptySet
59 posts
#19 • 1 Y
Y by Adventure10
@pythag: I suppose what I meant in my post is that newcomers to olympiads need to learn when a proof is rigorous versus when there's a major flaw in their reasoning. I've seen a number of students think they have solved a problem, but wrote a proof much more based on ituition than on logic, made an error in their proof that completely changes or trivializes the problem, or lost generality when assuming stuff. Sound logic is critical to actually getting points for your solutions; otherwise, you'll end up predicting a 21 and getting a 6.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
engarde
250 posts
#20 • 6 Y
Y by Quantum_fluctuations, Adventure10, Mango247, and 3 other users
Another thing I noticed when I started olympiad problems (and even AIME problems), I used to come up with an idea for a solution, followed it through for a bit, and then dropped after a little bit if I thought it wouldn't work, and once I looked at the solution, it used the exact solution I dropped, so, for this, I started writing down my thoughts on the problem.

So, if I decided to work on a potential solution, I would write why I was thinking about that particular idea. For example, looking through my old notebooks, I see my work on the first ever USAMO problem (http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Wiki/index.php/1972_USAMO_Problems). I have written "Since the problem contains gcd's and lcm's, we may consider prime factorization". Which, of course, leads to a simple solution.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
HyperSet
109 posts
#21 • 4 Y
Y by Adventure10 and 3 other users
EmptySet wrote:
@pythag: I suppose what I meant in my post is that newcomers to olympiads need to learn when a proof is rigorous versus when there's a major flaw in their reasoning. I've seen a number of students think they have solved a problem, but wrote a proof much more based on ituition than on logic, made an error in their proof that completely changes or trivializes the problem, or lost generality when assuming stuff. Sound logic is critical to actually getting points for your solutions; otherwise, you'll end up predicting a 21 and getting a 6.

hahahahahahahaha david yang should not be giving advice on proofwriting/lack thereof. david yang may be able to pull it off but unclear proofs annoy graders worse than bashs, precludes any chance of getting partial credit plus makes yourself can't check your own work.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Pina1234
146 posts
#22 • 3 Y
Y by Adventure10 and 2 other users
Well, if your logic is really sound, the graders will still give you full credit even if your proof is written badly. However, if your logic is unsound and your proof is written badly, then you'd probably get a point or two less than if you wrote your proof well.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pythag011
2453 posts
#23 • 15 Y
Y by Magikarp1, 62861, Zorger74, Adventure10, theSpider, and 10 other users
HyperSet wrote:
hahahahahahahaha david yang should not be giving advice on proofwriting/lack thereof. david yang may be able to pull it off but unclear proofs annoy graders worse than bashs, precludes any chance of getting partial credit plus makes yourself can't check your own work.

Note: I have never been deducted points for a problem I actually solved.

Note: I have lost partial credit points that I deserved.

Note: Checking your own work sounds boring. Reading your solutions is actually a terrible way of checking your work in nearly all cases.

Note: Brian Hamrick said the following: "I decided for this year that since David Yang got a 27 on USAMO with horrible proof writing skills that I didn't need to teach people what a proof is, and they can pick it up on the fly."

I'm not saying proofwriting is not important, I'm saying the people who never lose points due to proof-writing are not the people who practice proofwriting, but the people who actually spend all of their time learning how to solve problems. You learn more proofwriting that way than actually trying to learn proofwriting.

Skills learned from solving problems that help with proofwriting:

Rigor (makes your proofs complete)
How to organize your logic (makes you proofs readable)
What's important (Makes the grader not agonize over how you spend five thousand hours on trivial facts and just skim over the important stuff. I think this is the most important point, because for ELMO #6, I got around 100 pages total proving the same false fact and not actually proving a single thing in the proof because they all were just like "so we look at what is essentially the key of the problem... except we don't think it actually matters." I would highly disappointed if my ELMO #6 was that easy. In fact I'm sort of disappointed they didn't put the much harder version of it on.)

Skills learned from practicing proofwriting:

How to annoy the grader less because you have better writing.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
mathlearner
146 posts
#24 • 6 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 4 other users
"the most important thing is to understand the MOTIVATION behind a solution. Every time you read a solution, take a few minutes (or more than a few) to try and figure out how the solver managed to find that particular solution. Sometimes, you'll read solutions that just seem to come out of nowhere, but those are few and far between. Most of the time, there was something about the problem that tipped the writer off to what methods would be useful, what methods wouldn't be useful, etc. Whenever you read a solution, try to find those triggers, and use them to reason logically through the solution. By this I mean try to see how a solution flows from one discovery of a useful observation to the next. After you've understood the motivation, add it to your mental toolbox so that you can use it later on. Only then will you improve as a problem solver. Before I started doing this, I could never understand why a writer would use a certain crux move to break open a problem, but after I started taking the time to look for the motivation, that became a lot easier for me."

Jason.. thank you for the wording of this. This is EXACTLY what I wanted to say - but more in the form of a question to others (such as notably pythag and MellowMelon - both who have written extensive, helpful posts re: solving Olympiad level problems.) My question is this: Yes, I "get" that doing problems - Many, many problems oneself and figuring out the above mentioned insights is immensely helpful BUT what I believe would ALSO be very helpful would be if others who have been through this process already, wrote down in some form (be it a list, page, book (?), etc.) a list of problems and accompanying "triggers" (or hints, if you prefer that term) as to HOW someone who has No CLUE how to solve a particular problem (and no disrespect to Pythag, but if someone simply can't solve a problem, I don't believe staring at it endlessly, or working on it endlessly is the most fruitful use of one's limited time/effort - and I apologize if I misunderstood you) BUT I think merely viewing the solution to such a problem may not be ideal either. However, gaining a glimpse of understanding into the "trigger" as Jason put it, might be extremely useful. So how about it? Does such a list (of "triggers") EVEN EXIST anywhere? (Exeter people? Anyone??) Or how about a challenge to someone out there far more learned than myself to actually write up some of these harder Olympiad problems and the "triggers" that ultimately lend to solving? :-)
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
dnkywin
699 posts
#25 • 8 Y
Y by borntobeweild, HYP135peppers, Adventure10, Mango247, and 4 other users
While reading solutions may work for some areas of olympiad math where such a list of "triggers" is generally limited (such as geometry and inequalities), it can only take you so far in the other subjects, most notably combinatorics, where the techniques applies are much more diverse and subtle. In the latter, the more effective approach is to develop your intuition (which pythag011 already has crazy amounts of =/ ), something that can only be achieved through problem solving.

On a side note, if you're really staring at a problem for hours with no progress whatsoever, it's probably over your head. Otherwise you should keep clawing away at the problem and you should usually be able to solve it. (Hey, these problem's aren't designed to fall apart on your first attempt! That's why they give you 90 minutes for each problem.)

PS In my opinion, the said list of "triggers" already exists for the aforementioned topics, geometry and inequalities. See Yufei Zhao's geometry handouts and Hojoo Lee's Inequalities handout (a quick google will do).
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pythag011
2453 posts
#26 • 14 Y
Y by borntobeweild, Zeref, Kayak, JasperL, Zorger74, tigerzhang, CyclicISLscelesTrapezoid, spiritshine1234, Adventure10, Mango247, and 4 other users
dnkywin wrote:
On a side note, if you're really staring at a problem for hours with no progress whatsoever, it's probably over your head. Otherwise you should keep clawing away at the problem and you should usually be able to solve it. (Hey, these problem's aren't designed to fall apart on your first attempt! That's why they give you 90 minutes for each problem.)]

I think that it's very important to be able to see what's progress though.

1. Partial results that seem useful is progress.
2. Feeling that you have better intuition for the structure of the problem is progress.
3. Whenever a method doesn't work on a problem, always try to figure out why it doesn't work. This is extremely helpful, because you get stuff like, "darn this method doesn't work because of obstacles of this type...." "so we color the graph with 13 colors so that no such obstacles arise!."

As for triggers, errr some rather quick ones:

Exceedingly Random Condition => Don't try to use that condition at the start
Extremely Unflexible Structure => Extremal principle
Asymptotic Combo Problem => Probabilistic Method
Enumerative Combinatorics Problems in General => Probabilistic Method (Also for problems in other areas. Probabilistic method too strong.)
Number Theory Problem Asking You to Prove Something Is Not A Square or Integer: Either bounding or modular arithmetic. (Or sometimes, worse methods.... *cough* Vieta Jumping *cough*). The legendary example of the bounding technique is probably a^n-1/b^n-1 is an integer for all n, prove that b is a power of a.)
Seeming Random Diophantine Equation where Mods Don't Work: (Do algebraic manipulation, get one side to be a cyclotomic polynomial or such, and then use the fact that only certain primes can divide cyclotomic polynomials. The exceedingly silly example that I just made up on the spot is "Prove there are no solution to c(4ab+3) = b^2+1.")
A Midpoint => "All you have to do is construct a parallelogram!" -James Tao

http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/blog.php?u=87194& is pretty good btw.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
HyperSet
109 posts
#27 • 3 Y
Y by Adventure10 and 2 other users
pythag011 wrote:
As for triggers, errr some rather quick ones:
Some Inequalities=> Lagrange Multipliers
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pythag011
2453 posts
#28 • 4 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 2 other users
HyperSet wrote:
pythag011 wrote:
As for triggers, errr some rather quick ones:
Some Inequalities=> Lagrange Multipliers

No, Lagrange Multipliers suck. Just use normal calculus, most of the time its much more useful than lagrange multipliers.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
orl
3647 posts
#29 • 5 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 3 other users
pythag011 wrote:
The reason why I commented so briefly is because I feel people focus on resources too much. Yes they are very helpful, but there are people who don't read many books who are significantly better than most of the people who do.

I think there are different reasons for this emphasis. On the hand people are seeking the secret technique(s) who gives them a strong edge over other contestants. The idea/hope is lazy thinking where an advanced technique is used to reduce a challenging olympiad problem to a routine task, rather than the other way around to use only more elementary techniques but think really hard. So, I think it is an issue of calibration to have enough basic technical knowledge but, then, to prioritize to learn from solving problems rather than learning more advanced technical knowledge.

A list of olympiad books sorted by topic can be found here which contain theory, problems or both. And here is a list of ML/AoPS olympiad articles.

Richard Rusczyk refers to this in one of his articles where he was trying to obtain all theorems/tricks to be successful in math olympiads which he realized wasn't that useful after all. On the other hand people always assume others are smarter and try to outdo them by working harder or obtaining more technical knowledge. This also comes back to pythag011' point that thinking and reflection is hard, i.e. to be lazy and solve lots of problems is easier than solving less problems with more reflection what the problem may teach us.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
humzaiqbal
97 posts
#30 • 1 Y
Y by Adventure10
Also just remember to have fun. Don't think of solving math problems as something just for being good at these contests but as a pastime in and of itself. If you feel like you are overwhelmed and are miserable just stop and take a break. You can ruin an interest in math by overworking. And the point of these contests isn't to win but to build an interest in math.
So my advice:
1. practice math
2. practice math
3. do other things to keep yourself versatile
4. Whether you do well at USAMO, ARML, or any math contest you chose to partake in, your knowledge and love
for math will be with you forever
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
zero.destroyer
813 posts
#31 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
While it may be true to have fun once in a while, sometimes we have to deal with emotions seriously. For example, a person who is overwhelmed and is miserable is just one step short of gaining confidence.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
tzhang1
664 posts
#32 • 3 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 1 other user
So what I have heard is very good, and doing so will greatly help a neophyte to get used to these types of competitions. But when would it be time for somebody to think that they are consistent enough to do well on the USAMO (i.e. get a high score on 5 consecutive current USAMOs)? Or is it not true, that math is ongoing (and I think math is ongoing).
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
AwesomeToad
4535 posts
#33 • 1 Y
Y by Adventure10
I would highly recommend that you not focus on that. First, you probably have very little idea of how the USA(J)MO is scored. (no offense) Second, you probably should not be assuming that you will make USA(J)MO next year. I recommend for your current situation, to worry about passing the AIME first.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
trigonometry456103
349 posts
#34 • 4 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247, and 2 other users
I agree with awesometoad. Make sure before delving too deeply into olympiad problems that you are VERY CONFIDENT that you will at least qualify for USA(J)MO next year. If your practice indices are usually borderline USA(J)MO qualification indices, you will probably not make USA(J)MO next year. Especially on practice, you need to make sure your practice indices are several points higher than usual borderline USA(J)MO cutoffs. Oh and also make sure your AMC skills are up to par. Trust me, AMC makes a MUCH BIGGER IMPACT than what it may seem like. If you don't score well, you may not even qualify for AIME. If you score well enough to qualify, you may not score well enough to have a good shot(if a shot at all) at qualifying for USA(J)MO. It is very very very very very disappointing when you expect to qualify for USAMO from practice and something on test day goes very wrong...
Don't be in a rush to start preparing for olympiads; having a solid foundation is much more important. Of course, once you are almost 100% confident you will qualify for USA(J)MO, then get working on lots of olympiads.
Just speaking from some personal experience :)
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
rcordwell
89 posts
#35 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
If you've never taken an Olympiad before (or maybe have once), the most important thing you can do is to get comfortable with the test format. There are a lot of little things that can't really be taught, such as: differentiating between a problem you've solved and a problem you think you've solved, when to start writing your solutions, how long a given solution will take you to write, how much detail should you go into, and how to manage your time in general.

The good news is that you'll pick these up pretty quickly. The other good news is that the best and only way to do so is to make your practice match the tests as nearly as possible. If you do nothing else, at least make sure you've taken the test a couple of times. There's a reason the MOP schedule is packed with practice tests--the higher group you're in, the more tests you take!
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Kingofmath101
2210 posts
#36 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
The Olympiad forum is chock-full of Olympiad problems in Algebra, Combinatorics, Geometry, Number Theory, and Inequalities (which also deserves better treatment in schools). I would recommend solving as many problems in those subforums as you can for preparations. For certain competitions, the Calculus forums may also be helpful, or PM kunny.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
LMat
42 posts
#37 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
pythag011 wrote:
Extremely Unflexible Structure => Extremal principle
...
A Midpoint => "All you have to do is construct a parallelogram!" -James Tao

Both of these seem interesting to me, but don't quite get what you mean by them, so could you perhaps say more?

What do you mean by an "unflexible structure" and what is it about it that makes the extremal principle useful?

And in what way can parallelograms be used to deal with midpoints?
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
cobbler
2180 posts
#38 • 2 Y
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
Those are his intuitions; the point is that you have to build your own intuitions. I read once in his blog a useful quote that has helped me a lot: "Don't just build a road, build a world" (or something like that).
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
guptaamitu1
656 posts
#40 • 1 Y
Y by Mango247
MellowMelon wrote:
Blarg I got jumped by a whole bunch of people in writing this, but I don't think I'm just restating anything here...

Re above about proof writing: there's no reason you can't work on solving and writing at the same time. Write out solutions to the problems you think you've solved while practicing, and later find someone who knows their stuff to check what you did.
pythag011 wrote:
lol, I don't spend all of my time playing Starcraft. I do a lot more math than Starcraft, but I think the way you learn Starcraft is very similar to the way you learn math (Amusingly, I figured out how to learn math somewhat from this; and apparently Ben Gunby figured out how to learn starcraft because I told him it was like learning math.)
I think you can replace Starcraft and math with anything seriously competitive. In all of the competition-like things I've ever pushed myself to improve in, the same things apply: learn the fundamentals before memorizing advanced tricks, spend a lot of time playing/solving, and actually use that time correctly - take a hard look at every game/problem you finish to figure out what you need to improve. I'm sure there's more too.

Specifically applying the three things I mentioned above to math (but again, probably more can be said):

1. Fundamentals before advanced stuff. As an example, learning inequalities. Just learning what AM-GM/Cauchy are and how to solve some simple problems that use them is a bad idea (see the 2nd paragraph of this post for what the US IMO team leader thinks of that). You should know AM-GM and Cauchy of course, but you can't stop there. There are basic algebraic manipulations you have to know how to do, which you generally pick up by doing enough problems to have encountered them all. In general, thinking that you couldn't solve a problem (like USAMO 1 this year for instance) because you didn't know some high-powered result and that you should start practicing everything from Rearrangement to Popoviciu is a terrible, terrible idea.

2. Every time one of these threads about improving comes up, the answer is the same: do lots of problems. The sooner you realize there is no way around this the better. Books like ACOPS, PSS, the 10x subject books will all help with this, but the Contests section here suffices if you know where to look. There are a lot of past topics here about what books/problems/olympiads are suited for various levels.

3. Learning everything you can from the problems you do. This is really important and probably most of what pythag meant when he said "learn how to learn". You can easily do hundreds of problems or every past USAMO or whatever and make less progress than someone who just does a few dozen problems the right way. Your time spent on a problem should not end once you solve it or give up. If you get stuck on a problem, make sure you've worked on the problem for a long time before you even think about looking at a solution. For olympiad problems, getting no progress in the past hour is a good rule of thumb to start with. If you do get the problem, read other solutions anyway.

Now that you've worked hard on the problem and read the solutions, ask yourself some questions. Were there any approaches you tried that neither you nor any other solutions ended up using? If so, try to understand what about that method is fundamentally unsuited to the problem. On the flip side, were there any approaches you tried, discarded because you thought they didn't work, and yet other solutions successfully used them? If so, figure out which part of the solution you got stuck on enough to make you think you weren't going anywhere. How would you change your thinking to never miss such a step in the future? Were there any approaches you didn't think of at all? Stop reading the solution there, look up some things about that approach if you're not familiar with it, and then go back and spend awhile trying to apply it to the problem yourself. (This is a much better way to learn weird tricks like Vieta jumping or Combinatorial Nullstellensatz then just looking them up after having heard of the name.)

One important thing to keep in mind while you're doing this is there is a lot more to improving than just adding to your list of known theorems or what tricks work where, because once you hit a problem that thwarts every piece of your knowledge bank you have to think of something new. So you should also be trying to build a strong intuition about the results and tricks you know or even things much vaguer than that. How fast/slow is this sequence/function allowed to grow? Do these conditions on $n$ in the problem not seem to care about anything except $n$'s residue modulo something? Does this number theory problem ever actually use the addition operation? There are some results, like the majorization condition in Muirhead or the Chinese Remainder Theorem, that are really just formalizing a piece of intuition you could easily pick up on your own from experience.

Along these lines, a problem you couldn't solve might have an incredibly long and intimidating solution, but that solution might just be the result of writing out all of the details of an idea that you could come up with in less than five minutes. For that reason, for the scarier-looking solutions, or really any solutions, you should try to understand the steps and motivations until you can state all the main ideas in a couple sentences and basically know how to solve it from that. There's a good chance this will be a lot easier to do than it looks, and it will be of tremendous help when you run into a problem that utilizes similar ideas.


You might notice that in all of this I'm suggesting that there's no reason to believe someone who claims to have done thousands of problems and know every arcane theorem and trick out there is going to be successful, and that's exactly what I intend to say. It's always discouraging to see people say that they're planning to do every problem in PSS or every IMO SL, because it sounds like they're more intent on being able to say they've done that than actually doing the problems as thoroughly as they should. Reminds me of this xkcd.


(EDIT: Took a second read and realized I implied some things I didn't mean in places.)

I have a small doubt in this post. The author had said the following sentence in this paragraph of the post.
sentence of paragraph wrote:
Were there any approaches you tried that neither you nor any other solutions ended up using? If so, try to understand what about that method is fundamentally unsuited to the problem.

I am unable to get what the author exactly meant. Actually, I sometimes feel a particular problem can have a lot of different approaches/solutions. Some people also told me that on average 90% of the time the solution they found was not the official solution.

Can someone please tell what exactly was the author trying to convey?
Z K Y
N Quick Reply
G
H
=
a