This is how my ex-husband Joseph Bernstein used to start his courses in representation theory.
Suppose there is a four-armed dragon on every face of a cube. Each dragon has a bowl of kasha in front of him. Dragons are very greedy, so instead of eating their own kasha they try to steal kasha from their neighbors. Every minute every dragon extends four arms to the neighboring cube’s faces and tries to get the kasha from the bowls there. As four arms are fighting for every bowl of kasha, each arm manages to steal one-fourth of what is in the bowl. Thus each dragon steals one-fourth of of the kasha of each of his neighbors, while all of his own kasha is stolen too. Given the initial amounts of kasha in every bowl, what is the asymptotic behavior of the amounts of kasha?
You might ask how this relates to representation theory. First, it relates to linear algebra. We can consider the amounts of kasha as a six-dimensional vector space and the stealing process as a linear operator. As mathematicians, we can easily assume that a negative amount of kasha is allowed.
Now to representation theory. The group of rotations of the cube naturally acts on the 6-dimensional vector space of kashas. And the stealing operator is an intertwining operator of this representation. Now for a spoiler alert: I’m about to finish the solution, so stop here if you want to try it on your own.
The intertwining operator acts as a scalar on irreducible representations of the group. Thus we should decompose our representation into irreducible ones. The group has five irreducible representations with dimensions 1, 1, 2, 3, and 3.
We can decompose the kasha into the following three representations:
- One-dimensional. Every dragon has the same amounts of kasha. The stealing operator acts as identity.
- Three-dimensional. Dragons on opposite sides have the opposite amount of kasha. The stealing operator acts as zero.
- Two-dimensional. Dragons on opposite sides have the same amount of kasha and the total amount of kasha is zero. The stealing operator acts as −1/2.
We see that asymptotically every dragon will have the same amount of kasha.
Now it is your turn to use this method to solve a similar problem, where there are n dragons sitting on the sides of an n-gon. Each dragon has two arms, and steals half of the kasha from his neighbors. Hey, wait a minute! Why dragons? There are people around the table stealing each other’s kasha. But the question is still the same: What is the asymptotic behavior of the amounts of kasha?
Students should use a different strategy for the AIME than for the AMC. So students who are approaching the AIME for the first time need to question the habits they have developed after years of doing multiple choice tests. Here are some suggestions.
Checking. I’ve noticed that the accuracy level of students who take the AIME for the first time drops significantly. It seems that they are so used to multiple choice questions that they rely on multiple choices as a confirmation that they are right. So when someone solves a problem, they compare their answer to the given choices and if the answer is on the list they assume that the answer must be correct. Their pattern is broken when there are no choices. So they arrive at an answer and since there is no way to check it against choices, they just submit it. Because of this lack of confirmation, checking their answer in other ways becomes more important.
Timing. At the AMC we have 3 minutes per problem. At the AIME — 12. That means the timing strategies need to be different. Indeed, the AMC is so fast-paced that it is reasonable to save time by not reading a problem twice. If you read it, you either solve it or skip it and go on. The student who is not trying to achieve a perfect score can decide in advance not to read those final, highly-difficult problems.
For the AIME it is not expensive, in relative terms of time, to read all the problems. The student can read the problems and choose the most promising ones to start with, knowing that if there is time they can always come back to other problems.
Guessing. Guessing at the AMC is very profitable if you can exclude three choices out of the given five. Guessing for the AIME is a waste of time because the answers are integers between 000 and 999. So the probability of a random guess is one in a thousand. Actually, this is not quite right, because the problem writers are human and it is much easier to write a problem with an answer of 10 than one with an answer of 731. But the AIME designers are trying very hard to make answers that are randomly distributed. So the probability of a random guess is not one in a thousand, but it is very close. You can improve your chances by an intelligent guess. For example, you might notice that the answer must be divisible by 10. But guessing is still a waste of time. Thinking about a problem for two minutes in order to increase the probability of a correct guess to one in a 100 means that your expected gain is 1/200 points per minute. Which is usually much less than the gain for checking your answers. You can play the guessing game if you have exhausted your other options.
What saddens me is that the students who are not trained in checking use their first guess to make their life choices. But this is a subject for a separate discussion.
I have already written about how American math competition are illogically structured, for the early rounds do not prepare students for the later rounds. The first time mathletes encounter proofs is in the third level, USAMO. How can they prepare for problems with proofs? My suggestion is to look East. All rounds of Russian math Olympiads — from the local to the regional to the national — are structured in the same way: they have a few problems that require proofs. This is similar to the USAMO. At the national All-Russian Olympiad, the difficulty level is the same as USAMO, while the regionals are easier. That makes the problems from the regionals an excellent way to practice for the USAMO. The best regional Olympiad in Russia is the Moscow Olympiad. Here is the problem from the 1995 Moscow Olympiad:
We start with four identical right triangles. In one move we can cut one of the triangles along the altitude perpendicular to the hypotenuse into two triangles. Prove that, after any number of moves, there are two identical triangles among the whole lot.
This style of problems is very different from those you find in the AMC and the AIME. The answer is not a number; rather, the problem requires proofs and inventiveness, and guessing cannot help.
Here is another problem from the 2002 Olympiad. In this particular case, the problem cannot be adapted for multiple choice:
The tangents of a triangle’s angles are positive integers. What are possible values for these tangents?
The problems are taken from two books: Moscow Mathematical Olympiads, 1993-1999, and Moscow Mathematical Olympiads, 2000-2005. I love these books and the problems they present from past Moscow Olympiads. The solutions are nicely written and the books often contain alternative solutions, extended discussion, and interesting remarks. In addition, some problems are indexed by topics, which is very useful for teachers like me. But the best thing about these books are the problems themselves. Look at the following gem from 2004, which can be used as a magic trick or an idea for a research paper:
A deck of 36 playing cards (four suits of nine cards each) lies in front of a psychic with their faces down. The psychic names the suit of the upper card; after that the card is turned over and shown to him. Then the psychic names the suit of the next card, and so on. The psychic’s goal is to guess the suit correctly as many times as possible.
The backs of the cards are asymmetric, so each card can be placed in the deck in two ways, and the psychic can see which way the top card is oriented. The psychic’s assistant knows the order of the cards in the deck; he is not allowed to change the order, but he may orient any card in either of the two ways.
Is it possible for the psychic to make arrangements with his assistant in advance, before the latter learns the order of the cards, so as to ensure that the suits of at least (a) 19 cards, (b) 23 cards will be guessed correctly?
If you devise a guessing strategy for another number of cards greater than 19, explain that too.