‘nother update (#BigMathOff)

Just another Sunday update on the Big Internet Math-Off (by now you’re either interested in this contest or not)… My own quickie review of outcomes (and correct me if I have any of it wrong) is that Lucy Rycroft-Smith is the only contender with 3 victories under her belt thus far, which she has well-earned with some wonderful postings, while Carr, Haensch, Neale, Shah, and Warren, each have two matchup-wins apiece (if you didn’t notice, 5 of the 6 named are all females). As those following along know, Vicky Neale won her second match by default when Sunil Singh, had to drop out of the contest, due to some extraneous matters in his life — probably the biggest glitch in the proceedings thus far, and I’m not sure if it creates any future issues?
==> WHOA! (correction)... in looking back it appears Sameer Shah actually has 3 victories (not just 2) as well, and will face Rycroft-Smith in one of the semi-finals.

Overall, things have gone so well that I hear next year Christian (Master-of-Ceremonies of the event) is planning to copy the USA ‘March Madness’ NCAA Basketball Tournament format, and start the competition with 64 entrants… no, no, NO, just kidding; none of us want to see Christian’s head explode (…that would make for a verrrry messy day in the offices of The Aperiodical). 

Anyway, will be interesting to see what the competitors put out next — who offered up their best material early, and who is saving their best for last, and all permutations in-between? Can Lucy keep her streak going, or will someone lurch forward from the back of the pack? Will it be an all-woman finale? Could any of them truly defeat James Grime in a head-to-head match... or, in a smiling contest? And least important of all… when will we ever use any of this?

[Today's contest is between Alex Corner and Grant Sanderson... if you haven't already, go vote!]

#BigMathOff Well Underway...

Hope you are all following along with this summer’s Big Internet Math Off contest at the Aperiodical. Last year’s was fun, and with a new, more complex format, this year’s is even funner!! Christian Lawson-Perfect has taken last year’s experiment to a new level... which seems to be running with amazingly few glitches! 

Great also to get introduced to several expositors I was totally unfamiliar with. In fact, I’ve been blown away a bit by the quality of the presentations — it’s one thing to be able to find/pick out interesting nuggets of mathiness, it’s quite another to present them to a large-scale audience in both an effective visual and expository form; so far, many great examples. A little disappointing that there haven’t been more votes cast in several of the matchups, but no doubt a lot more folks are reading/enjoying these posts than are voting (I myself have sometimes been tempted not to vote, because it is so hard choosing!). The tournament is only about halfway over, so plenty more to look forward to. And so long as no one bribes Matt Parker (last year's runner-up) to sway his 85,000 Twitter followers to vote as a block I think all will be kosher... ;)

Anyway, once the contest is over it might be interesting for someone (I don’t have time) to look at many possible factors in the match-up results. It would be nice to believe that votes are based on nothing more than objective judgment of the quality of the posts, but of course there's much subjectivity involved and no telling what else enters into the equation:

1)  Is there a difference/advantage to being a first or second presenter in the matchups?

2)  How about more algebraic versus more geometrical presentations, or more visual or video-based presentations versus more textual? or, simply long versus short entries?

3)  Does day-of-the-week have any consistent effect on the voting, especially weekends versus weekdays (or the July 4th holiday)?

4)  Any pattern in the results of gender (male vs. female) match-ups? or, how about Brits vs. non-Brits?

5)  Would there be any advantage to having the posts be anonymous, simply labelled "Entrant A," "Entrant B," "Entrant C," etc. (could anonymity even be maintained through a multi-week contest)?

6)  And of course it would be great to know which astrological signs fared best in the contest? ;))

You can likely think of other factors to play with too…

The sample size from the contest is too small for any such analysis to mean much, but still might be interesting.  

And I’m not certain myself exactly how the scoring is being done to determine the semi-finalists/finalists; that may raise other questions as well.

The mathematical jousting continues almost daily through the end of the month when a winner is crowned. Good luck to all!

Dueling Mathematicians...

First, in the Road-from-Ridicule-to-Nobel-Prize Dept.:

1)  In yesterday’s #BigMathOff competition Edmund Harriss linked to an older story I didn’t recall hearing, but found fascinating… that of Israeli scientist Daniel Shechtman ridiculed/mocked (even losing his job!) for discovering quasicrystals with never-repeating patterns, only to later receive the Nobel Prize for the same finding (after no less than Linus Pauling had said, “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists”):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nobel-chemistry/ridiculed-crystal-work-wins-nobel-for-israeli-idUSTRE7941EP20111006

The story is a great lesson in the uncertainty of science, and even a cautionary tale of the occasional difficulty in distinguishing science from crackpottery.

As many or most of you know, in recent years, there has been much attention given to possible links between quasicrystals and prime numbers or the Riemann Hypothesis:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-chemist-shines-light-on-a-surprising-prime-number-pattern-20180514/

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/06/quasicrystals_and_the_riemann.html

-------------------------------

And from the Surprises-In-Probability Dept.:

2)  Harriss’s competition in this round of the ‘Math-off’ is Colin Wright whose exposition of some full-deck card-play is wonderfully entertaining, especially for those who like playing with probabilities. It is the sort of example that can be enjoyed by both young people and adults, with a result that will likely seem counterintuitive at first, making it all the more enjoyable. Warning: it can be a bit addictive!

Kudos to Aperiodical's Christian Lawson-Perfect for organizing this 1st Annual ;) Big Internet Math-Off. The above Harriss-Wright square-off, by the way, is match 4 of round 1 (and you still have time to vote for your fave). Much fun yet to come.