Thoughts on HMMT

Overall, HMMT was well run. However, some of the tests could definitely have been better written. I'm going to just talk about the Combinatorics and Calculus subject tests from individual, since those were the two I took, and I'll also talk about team and guts.

First up is Calculus. I think everyone should realize that a 4 way tie for first at 29 is a problem with the test. The problems that I liked on calculus were 1, 2, 3, and 8. The rest of them have some issues.

Problem 4: Everyone who thinks about this problem can probably get it, but I think it's not exactly kosher to assume that people that people know the equidistribution theorem.

Problem 5: Just differentiate 4 times...seriously? I mean there's the nicer approach where you can notice that you only get 4 copies of when you differentiate the term 4 times, so you can directly pull out the coefficient by looking at just that term. By the time problem 5 rolls around I think you should be moving away from the stupidly straightforward problems.

Problem 6: I didn't actually solve this problem, although I had enough intuition that I could have finished it rigorously somewhat quickly. I just said, ``Let's put the line through the inflection point'', which is exactly what you want to do as cubics are symmetric about the inflection point.

Problem 7: This problem shares the same issue as many of the problems on the test. The answer (set two equal and imaginary and the third one real) is guessable (although I don't think anyone did), but it's completely unreasonable to expect students to prove it in 50 minutes when there are 9 other problems to work on.

Problem 9: Nice solution, but do you really expect anyone to get it?

Problem 10: This one is definitely doable...but it basically has seeing it before as a prerequisite. I thought that was what we were trying to avoid after last year's #10. It's a nice technique, but I don't think anyone would be able to come up with it during the test.

Overall, calculus had relatively easy problems #1-#6, a doable #8, and impossible #7, #9, and #10. 29 was getting all the doable problems. It really doesn't help the test to put a bunch of impossible problems on. The difficulty just has such a huge jump between 6 and 7, with 8 in between somewhere. I'd not be surprised if there is not only a huge tie at 29, but also a huge tie at 23. Perfect scores aren't a problem; ties are.

Next up: Combinatorics. Most of this test was actually good. I only really have complaints about problems 7 and 10.

Problem 7: This problem is just so out of place at HMMT. Looking at the rest of the problems, there is absolutely no strenuous computation. This problem, in contrast, is a complete computation-fest, after a moderately silly manipulation with expected values.

Problem 10: Same issue as Calculus #7. It's somewhat possible (although I doubt anyone did) to guess the optimal configuration, but not reasonable to expect students to prove it during the test. It's made even worse by the obfuscation that $16 = 4^2$, so instead of trying things like 5x5 with 4 numbers, people would rather have tried 4x4 with 2 numbers. I really dislike the problem for this kind of test. It would make a good team round problem, though.

I would have liked the test a lot better if problem 10 were what is now problem 7, and an actual problem 7 were in the problem 7 slot, although I really don't like the current problem 7 as problem 10 either.

Now for team round. I liked the team round more than other rounds this year (although that might have been because we won), because I think there was actually a scaling of difficulty (and the ability to give partial credit helps immensely). However, some of the problems had minor issues.

Problem 1: This is pretty classic. I'm pretty sure that Dan is not wrong when he says that he has seen it before.

Problem 2: I feel like I have seen this problem before, although it may have been slightly different (and the key observation should be that every divisor of an odd number is odd).

Problem 4: I'm pretty sure this is way too classic (although I forgot to cover the case where the 2x2 system for x+y and xy is singular, oops!). Actually I'm wondering if it's even possible for A, B, C, and D to be rational except at x=0, y=0.

Problem 5: I think it was fine, except that ``decreasing'' is ambiguous because you write polynomials starting from the highest order term, so we had the (unanswerable) question of does have decreasing coefficients or does ? We did eventually settle on the one in the official solution, luckily.

Problem 6: Okay darn, I gave a pretty bad argument for the existence of an infinite ray being inside the set (A better argument is to just look at the furthest distance at each angle. It's clearly continuous and then it should have a maximum since is compact, but that would mean it's bounded. Contradiction.). Mine can be made rigorous when you add in a weird continuity requirement and use the fact that is compact, but then you just get exactly the argument above. I actually like this problem, but I think that Jacob has mentioned that usually problems that have roots in college level math are rejected.

Problem 7: Maybe we're just bad at geometry, but it took Alex Zhu and I about 3 hours working together to solve this problem. Pretty sure this was harder than both 8 and 9 (and 10a, but having 10 be 10 is justified by 10b), but it was a good problem.

Problem 9: Maximum should run from i=1 to n, not i=0 to n-1, but I think that was pretty clear for most people. This problem was definitely easier than some of the ones that appear before it on the test. I'm not sure why it's a problem 9.

Problem 10: 10a is nice, but when Jacob says ``The idea for 10a works for 10b too after a few hours of work,'' it starts to look a bit unreasonable. I feel sad because I would have guessed and now I'm wondering why I didn't write that down. Maybe we would have gotten a point!

Finally, guts.

I really liked most of the guts round (in fact, almost all of it). But there were a few issues:

Problem 12: No, it is not ``obvious'' that does not need to be multiplied out. Replace the 9 by a 2010 and it would be. I don't see why that wasn't done.

Problem 17: Again, assuming people know (or can intuit) the equidistribution theorem (although in this case you don't actually need equidistribution) is a bit sketchy. However, I mind this a lot less in guts than in the other rounds.

Problem 32: I'm pretty sure our team had a fraction that we did not have time to turn into a decimal approximation. Without calculators, I find it a bit annoying that you would ask for a decimal to 5 places.

Problem 33: You have an exact form, so I'm not sure why the test is asking for the floor of . I'd also like to point out that Vieta jumping tells you that immediately (and it's odd because this recurrence was used earlier in the round). I would have rather asked for the exact form, although perhaps it is impractical to grade? Regardless, I would avoid approximation problems that can be solved exactly.

As you can see, I have many fewer issues with the guts round than the other rounds. This is probably because I consider guts to have a vastly different style, so it is easier to write problems for it and also there are so many problems that it's almost impossible to get the issues like what happened on the calculus individual test.

I guess a large part of my complaint is that the calculus test had a huge wall at 29 points that really made it hard for people who took calculus to compete with the people who took the other tests. This definitely has happened in the past (such as with the even harder wall at 50 for geometry a few years ago), and I guess I'm just a bit bitter that it happened to my tests this year. I do think (looking at results again) it affected this year's competition a lot more than last year's. Last year calculus was the test that suffered from the most ties (which was probably from the test being a bit too straightforward), but it wasn't a four way tie for first.

Overall, well done as always, but let's make next year's even better!