Category: mathematics

Bob Moses, who helped register Black residents to vote in Mississippi during the Civil Rights Movement, believed civil rights went beyond the ballot box. To Moses, who was a teacher as well as an activist, math literacy is a civil right: a requirement to earning a living wage in modern society. In 1982, he founded the Algebra Project to ensure that “students at the bottom get the math literacy they need.”

As a researcher who studies ways to improve the math experiences of students, we believe a new approach that expands access to algebra may help more students get the math literacy Moses, who died in 2021, viewed as so important. It’s a goal districts have long been struggling to meet.

Efforts to improve student achievement in algebra have been taking place for decades. Unfortunately, the math pipeline in the United States is fraught with persistent opportunity gaps. According to the Nation’s Report Card—a congressionally mandated project administered by the Department of Education—in 2022 only 29% of U.S. fourth graders and 20% of U.S. eighth graders were proficient in math. Low-income students, students of colour and multilingual learners, who tend to have lower scores on math assessments, often do not have the same access as others to qualified teachers, high-quality curriculum and well-resourced classrooms.

A new approach

The Dallas Independent School District—or Dallas ISD—is gaining national attention for increasing opportunities to learn by raising expectations for all students. Following in the footsteps of more than 60 districts in the state of Washington, in 2019 the Dallas ISD implemented an innovative approach of having students be automatically enrolled rather than opt in to honours math in middle school.

Under an opt-in policy, students need a parent or teacher recommendation to take honours math in middle school and Algebra 1 in eighth grade. That policy led both to low enrolment and very little diversity in honours math. Some parents, especially those who are Black or Latino, were not aware how to enroll their students in advanced classes due to a lack of communication in many districts.

In addition, implicit bias, which exists in all demographic groups, may influence teachers’ perceptions of the behaviour and academic potential of students, and therefore their subsequent recommendations. Public school teachers in the U.S. are far less racially and ethnically diverse than the students they serve.

Dallas ISD’s policy overhaul aimed to foster inclusivity and bridge educational gaps among students. Through this initiative, every middle school student, regardless of background, was enrolled in honours math, the pathway that leads to taking Algebra 1 in eighth grade, unless they opted out.

Flipping the switch from opt-in to opt-out led to a dramatic increase in the number of Black and Latino learners, who constitute the majority of Dallas students. And the district’s overall math scores remained steady. About 60% of Dallas ISD eighth graders are now taking Algebra 1, triple the prior level. Moreover, more than 90% are passing the state exam.

Efforts spread

Other cities are taking notice of the effects of Dallas ISD’s shifting policy. The San Francisco Unified School District, for example, announced plans in February 2024 to implement Algebra 1 in eighth grade in all schools by the 2026-27 school year.

In fall 2024, the district will pilot three programs to offer Algebra 1 in eighth grade. The pilots range from an opt-out program for all eighth graders—with extra support for students who are not proficient—to a program that automatically enrolls proficient students in Algebra 1, offered as an extra math class during the school day. Students who are not proficient can choose to opt in. Nationwide, however, districts that enroll all students in Algebra 1 and allow them to opt out are still in the minority. And some stopped offering eighth grade Algebra 1 entirely, leaving students with only pre-algebra classes. Cambridge, Massachusetts—the city in which Bob Moses founded the Algebra Project—is among them.

Equity concerns linger

Between 2017 and 2019, district leaders in the Cambridge Public Schools phased out the practice of placing middle school students into “accelerated” or “grade-level” math classes. Few middle schools in the district now offer Algebra 1 in eighth grade.

The policy shift, designed to improve overall educational outcomes, was driven by concerns over significant racial disparities in advanced math enrollment in high school. Completion of Algebra 1 in eighth grade allows students to climb the math ladder to more difficult classes, like calculus, in high school. In Cambridge, the students who took eighth grade Algebra 1 were primarily white and Asian; Black and Latino students enrolled, for the most part, in grade-level math.

Some families and educators contend that the district’s decision made access to advanced math classes even more inequitable. Now, advanced math in high school is more likely to be restricted to students whose parents can afford to help them prepare with private lessons, after-school programs or private schooling, they said.

While the district has tried to improve access to advanced math in high school by offering a free online summer program for incoming ninth graders, achievement gaps have remained persistently wide.

Perhaps striking a balance between top-down policy and bottom-up support will help schools across the U.S. realize the vision Moses dreamed of in 1982 when he founded the Algebra Project: “That in the 21st century every child has a civil right to secure math literacy—the ability to read, write and reason with the symbol systems of mathematics.”

For more insights like this, visit our website at www.international-maths-challenge.com.

Credit of the article given to Liza Bondurant, The Conversation

Math education outcomes in the United States have been unequal for decades. Learners in the top 10% socioeconomically tend to be about four grade levels ahead of learners in the bottom 10%—a statistic that has remained stubbornly persistent for 50 years.

To advance equity, policymakers and educators often focus on boosting test scores and grades and making advanced courses more widely available. Through this lens, equity means all students earn similar grades and progress to similar levels of math.

With more than three decades of experience as a researcher, math teacher and teacher educator, we advocate for expanding what equity means in mathematics education. We believe policymakers and educators should focus less on test scores and grades and more on developing students’ confidence and ability to use math to make smart personal and professional decisions. This is mathematical power—and true equity.

What is ‘equity’ in math?

To understand the limitations of thinking about equity solely in terms of academic achievements, consider a student whom We interviewed during her freshman year of college.

Jasmine took Algebra 1 in ninth grade, followed by a summer online geometry course. This put her on a pathway to study calculus during her senior year in an AP class in which she earned an A. She graduated high school in the top 20% of her class and went to a highly selective liberal arts college. Now in her first year, she plans to study psychology.

Did Jasmine receive an equitable mathematics education? From an equity-as-achievement perspective, yes. But let’s take a closer look.

Jasmine experienced anxiety in her math classes during her junior and senior years in high school. Despite strong grades, she found herself “in a little bit of a panic” when faced with situations that require mathematical analysis. This included deciding the best loan options.

In college, Jasmine’s major required statistics. Her counsellor and family encouraged her to take calculus over statistics in high school because calculus “looked better” for college applications. She wishes now she had studied statistics as a foundation for her major and for its usefulness outside of school. In her psychology classes, knowledge of statistics helps her better understand the landscape of disorders and to ask questions like, “How does gender impact this disorder?”

These outcomes suggest Jasmine did not receive an equitable mathematics education, because she did not develop mathematical power. Mathematical power is the know-how and confidence to use math to inform decisions and navigate the demands of daily life—whether personal, professional or civic. An equitable education would help her develop the confidence to use mathematics to make decisions in her personal life and realize her professional goals. Jasmine deserved more from her mathematics education.

The prevalence of inequitable math education

Experiences like Jasmine’s are unfortunately common. According to one large-scale study, only 37% of U.S. adults have mathematical skills that are useful for making routine financial and medical decisions.

A National Council on Education and the Economy report found that coursework for nine common majors, including nursing, required relatively few of the mainstream math topics taught in most high schools. A recent study found that teachers and parents perceive math education as “unengaging, outdated and disconnected from the real world.”

Looking at student experiences, national survey results show that large proportions of students experience anxiety about math class, low levels of confidence in math, or both. Students from historically marginalized groups experience this anxiety at higher rates than their peers. This can frustrate their postsecondary pursuits and negatively affect their lives.

How to make math education more equitable

In 2023, We collaborated with other educators from Connecticut’s professional math education associations to author an equity position statement. The position statement, which was endorsed by the Connecticut State Board of Education, outlines three commitments to transform mathematics education.

1. Foster positive math identities: The first commitment is to foster positive math identities, which includes students’ confidence levels and their beliefs about math and their ability to learn it. Many students have a very negative relationship with mathematics. This commitment is particularly important for students of colour and language learners to counteract the impact of stereotypes about who can be successful in mathematics.

A growing body of material exists to help teachers and schools promote positive math identities. For example, writing a math autobiography can help students see the role of math in their lives. They can also reflect on their identity as a “math person.” Teachers should also acknowledge students’ strengths and encourage them to share their own ideas as a way to empower them.

2. Modernize math content: The second commitment is to modernize the mathematical content that school districts offer to students. For example, a high school mathematics pathway for students interested in health care professions might include algebra, math for medical professionals and advanced statistics. With these skills, students will be better prepared to calculate drug dosages, communicate results and risk factors to patients, interpret reports and research, and catch potentially life-threatening errors.
3. Align state policies and requirements:The third commitment is to align state policies and school districts in their definition of mathematical proficiency and the requirements for achieving it. In 2018, for instance, eight states had a high school math graduation requirement insufficient for admission to the public universities in the same state. Other states’ requirements exceed the admission requirements. Aligning state and district definitions of math proficiency clears up confusion for students and eliminates unnecessary barriers.

What’s next?

As long as educators and policymakers focus solely on equalizing test scores and enrolment in advanced courses, we believe true equity will remain elusive. Mathematical power—the ability and confidence to use math to make smart personal and professional decisions—needs to be the goal.

No one adjustment to the U.S. math education system will immediately result in students gaining mathematical power. But by focusing on students’ identities and designing math courses that align with their career and life goals, we believe schools, universities and state leaders can create a more expansive and equitable math education system.

For more insights like this, visit our website at www.international-maths-challenge.com.

Credit of the article given to Megan Staples, The Conversation

A pair of mathematicians studied the UK National Lottery and figured out a combination of 27 tickets that guarantees you will always win, but they tell New Scientist they don’t bother to play.

David Cushing and David Stewart calculate a winning solution

Earlier this year, two mathematicians revealed that it is possible to guarantee a win on the UK national lottery by buying just 27 tickets, despite there being 45,057,474 possible draw combinations. The pair were shocked to see their findings make headlines around the world and inspire numerous people to play these 27 tickets – with mixed results – and say they don’t bother to play themselves.

David Cushing and David Stewart at the University of Manchester, UK, used a mathematical field called finite geometry to prove that particular sets of 27 tickets would guarantee a win.

They placed each of the lottery numbers from 1 to 59 in pairs or triplets on a point within one of five geometrical shapes, then used these to generate lottery tickets based on the lines within the shapes. The five shapes offer 27 such lines, meaning that 27 tickets will cover every possible winning combination of two numbers, the minimum needed to win a prize. Each ticket costs £2.

It was an elegant and intuitive solution to a tricky problem, but also an irresistible headline that attracted newspapers, radio stations and television channels from around the world. And it also led many people to chance their luck – despite the researchers always pointing out that it was, statistically speaking, a very good way to lose money, as the winnings were in no way guaranteed to even cover the cost of the tickets.

Cushing says he has received numerous emails since the paper was released from people who cheerily announce that they have won tiny amounts, like two free lucky dips – essentially another free go on the lottery. “They were very happy to tell me how much they’d lost basically,” he says.

The pair did calculate that their method would have won them £1810 if they had played on one night during the writing of their research paper – 21 June. Both Cushing and Stewart had decided not to play the numbers themselves that night, but they have since found that a member of their research group “went rogue” and bought the right tickets – putting himself £1756 in profit.

“He said what convinced him to definitely put them on was that it was summer solstice. He said he had this feeling,” says Cushing, shaking his head as he speaks. “He’s a professional statistician. He is incredibly lucky with it; he claims he once found a lottery ticket in the street and it won £10.”

Cushing and Stewart say that while their winning colleague – who would prefer to remain nameless – has not even bought them lunch as a thank you for their efforts, he has continued to play the 27 lottery tickets. However, he now randomly permutes the tickets to alternative 27-ticket, guaranteed-win sets in case others have also been inspired by the set that was made public. Avoiding that set could avert a situation where a future jackpot win would be shared with dozens or even hundreds of mathematically-inclined players.

Stewart says there is no way to know how many people are doing the same because Camelot, which runs the lottery, doesn’t release that information. “If the jackpot comes up and it happens to match exactly one of the [set of] tickets and it gets split a thousand ways, that will be some indication,” he says.

Nonetheless, Cushing says that he no longer has any interest in playing the 27 tickets. “I came to the conclusion that whenever we were involved, they didn’t make any money, and then they made money when we decided not to put them on. That’s not very mathematical, but it seemed to be what was happening,” he says.

And Stewart is keen to stress that mathematics, no matter how neat a proof, can never make the UK lottery a wise investment. “If every single man, woman and child in the UK bought a separate ticket, we’d only have a quarter chance of someone winning the jackpot,” he says.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Matthew Sparkes*

Avi Wigderson has won the 2023 Turing award for his work on understanding how randomness can shape and improve computer algorithms.

The mathematician Avi Wigderson has won the 2023 Turing award, often referred to as the Nobel prize for computing, for his work on understanding how randomness can shape and improve computer algorithms.

Wigderson, who also won the prestigious Abel prize in 2021 for his mathematical contributions to computer science, was taken aback by the award. “The [Turing] committee fooled me into believing that we were going to have some conversation about collaborating,” he says. “When I zoomed in, the whole committee was there and they told me. I was excited, surprised and happy.”

Computers work in a predictable way at the hardware level, but this can make it difficult for them to model real-world problems, which often have elements of randomness and unpredictability. Wigderson, at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, has shown over a decades-long career that computers can also harness randomness in the algorithms that they run.

In the 1980s, Wigderson and his colleagues discovered that by inserting randomness into some algorithms, they could make them easier and faster to solve, but it was unclear how general this technique was. “We were wondering whether this randomness is essential, or maybe you can always get rid of it somehow if you’re clever enough,” he says.

One of Wigderson’s most important discoveries was making clear the relationship between types of problems, in terms of their difficulty to solve, and randomness. He also showed that certain algorithms that contained randomness and were hard to run could be made deterministic, or non-random, and easier to run.

These findings helped computer scientists better understand one of the most famous unproven conjectures in computer science, called “P ≠ NP”, which proposes that easy and hard problems for a computer to solve are fundamentally different. Using randomness, Wigderson discovered special cases where the two classes of problem were the same.

Wigderson first started exploring the relationship between randomness and computers in the 1980s, before the internet existed, and was attracted to the ideas he worked on by intellectual curiosity, rather than how they might be used. “I’m a very impractical person,” he says. “I’m not really motivated by applications.”

However, his ideas have become important for a wide swath of modern computing applications, from cryptography to cloud computing. “Avi’s impact on the theory of computation in the last 40 years is second to none,” says Oded Goldreich at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. “The diversity of the areas to which he has contributed is stunning.”

One of the unexpected ways in which Wigderson’s ideas are now widely used was his work, with Goldreich and others, on zero-knowledge proofs, which detail ways of verifying information without revealing the information itself. These methods are fundamental for cryptocurrencies and blockchains today as a way to establish trust between different users.

Although great strides in the theory of computation have been made over Wigderson’s career, he says that the field is still full of interesting and unsolved problems. “You can’t imagine how happy I am that I am where I am, in the field that I’m in,” he says. “It’s bursting with intellectual questions.”

Wigderson will receive a $1 million prize as part of the Turing award.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Alex Wilkins*

Putting off college math could improve the likelihood that students remain in college. But that may only be true as long as students don’t procrastinate more than one year. This is what colleagues and I found in a study published in 2023 of 1,119 students at a public university for whom no remedial coursework was required during their first year.

Enrolling in a math course during the first semester of college resulted in students being four times more likely to drop out. Although delayed enrollment in a math course had benefits in the first year, its advantages vanished by the end of the second year. In our study, almost 40% of students who postponed the course beyond a year did not attempt it at all and failed to obtain a degree within six years.

Why it matters

Nearly 1.7 million students who recently graduated from high school will immediately enroll in college. Math is a requirement for most degrees, but students aren’t always ready to do college-level math. By putting off college math for a year, it gives students time to adjust to college and prepare for more challenging coursework.

Approximately 40% of four-year college students must first take a remedial math course. This can extend the time it takes to graduate and increase the likelihood of dropping out. Our study did not apply to students who need remedial math.

For students who do not require remedial courses, some delay can be beneficial, but students’ past experiences in math can lead to avoidance of math courses. Many students experience math anxiety. Procrastination can be an avoidance strategy for managing fears about math. The fear of math for students may be a more significant barrier than their performance.

It is estimated that at least 17% of the population will likely experience high levels of math anxiety. Math anxiety can lead to a drop in math performance. It can also lead to avoiding majors and career paths involving math.

Our study fills the void in research on the effects of how soon students take college-level math courses. It also supports prior evidence that students benefit from a mix of coursework that is challenging yet not overwhelming as they transition to college.

What still isn’t known

We believe colleges need to better promote student confidence in math by examining how student success courses can reduce math anxiety. Student success courses provide students with study skills, note-taking skills, goal setting, time management and stress management, as well as career and financial decision making to support the transition to college. Although student success courses are a proven practice that help students stick with college, rarely do these courses address students’ fear of math.

Students are at the greatest risk of dropping out of college during their first year. Advisors play a crucial role in providing students with resources for success. This includes recommendations on what courses to take and when to take them. More research is also needed about how advisors can effectively communicate the impact of when math is taken by students.

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to Forrest Lane, The Conversation

Luis Caffarelli has been awarded the most prestigious prize in mathematics for his work on nonlinear partial differential equations, which have many applications in the real world.

Luis Caffarelli has won the 2023 Abel prize, unofficially called the Nobel prize for mathematics, for his work on a class of equations that describe many real-world physical systems, from melting ice to jet engines.

Caffarelli was having breakfast with his wife when he found out the news. “The breakfast was better all of a sudden,” he says. “My wife was happy, I was happy — it was an emotional moment.”

Based at the University of Texas at Austin, Caffarelli started work on partial differential equations (PDEs) in the late 1970s and has contributed to hundreds of papers since. He is known for making connections between seemingly distant mathematical concepts, such as how a theory describing the smallest possible areas that surfaces can occupy can be used to describe PDEs in extreme cases.

PDEs have been studied for hundreds of years and describe almost every sort of physical process, ranging from fluids to combustion engines to financial models. Caffarelli’s most important work concerned nonlinear PDEs, which describe complex relationships between several variables. These equations are more difficult to solve than other PDEs, and often produce solutions that don’t make sense in the physical world.

Caffarelli helped tackle these problems with regularity theory, which sets out how to deal with problematic solutions by borrowing ideas from geometry. His approach carefully elucidated the troublesome parts of the equations, solving a wide range of problems over his more than four-decade career.

“Forty years after these papers appeared, we have digested them and we know how to do some of these things more efficiently,” says Francesco Maggi at the University of Texas at Austin. “But when they appeared back in the day, in the 80s, these were alien mathematics.”

Many of the nonlinear PDEs that Caffarelli helped describe were so-called free boundary problems, which describe physical scenarios where two objects in contact share a changing surface, like ice melting into water or water seeping through a filter.

“He has used insights that combined ingenuity, and sometimes methods that are not ultra-complicated, but which are used in a manner that others could not see — and he has done that time and time again,” says Thomas Chen at the University of Texas at Austin.

These insights have also helped other researchers translate equations so that they can be solved on supercomputers. “He has been one of the most prominent people in bringing this theory to a point where it’s really useful for applications,” says Maggi.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Alex Wilkins*

How can you figure out which points lie on a certain curve? And how many possible curves do you count by a given number of points? These are the kinds of questions Pim Spelier of the Mathematical Institute studied during his Ph.D. research. Spelier received his doctorate with distinction on June 12.

What does counting curves mean on an average day? “A lot of sitting and gazing,” Spelier replies. “When I’m asked what exactly do, can’t always answer that easily. Usually give the example about the particle traveling through time.”

All possible curves

Imagine a particle moving through space and you follow the path the particle makes through time. That path is a curve, a geometric object. How many possible paths can the particle follow, if we assume certain properties? For example, a straight line can only pass through two points in one way. But how many paths are possible for the particle if we look at more difficult curves? And how do you study that?

By looking at all possible curves at the same time. For example, all possible directions from a given point form with each other a circle, and that is called a modulspace. And that circle is itself a geometric object.

The mathematical magic can happen because this set of all curves itself has geometrical properties, Spelier says, to which you can apply geometrical tricks. Next, you can make that far more complicated with even more complex curves and spaces. So not counting in three but, for example, in eleven dimensions.

Spelier tries to find patterns that always apply to the curves he studies. His approach? Breaking up complicated spaces into small, easy spaces. You can also break curves into partial curves. That way, the spaces in which you’re counting are easier. But the curves sometimes get complicated properties, because you have to be able to glue them back together.

Spelier says, “The goal is to find enough principles to determine the number of curves exactly.”

In addition to curves, Spelier also counted points on curves. He studied the question: how many solutions does a given mathematical equation have?

These are equations that are a bit more complicated than the a² + b² = c² of the Pythagorean theorem. That equation is about the lengths of the sides of a right triangle. If you replace the squares with higher powers, it is more difficult to investigate solutions. Spelier studied solutions in whole numbers, for example, 3² + 4² = 5².

Meanwhile, there is a method to find those solutions. Professor of Mathematics Bas Edixhoven, who died in 2022, and his Ph.D. student Guido Lido developed an alternative approach to the same problem. But to what extent the two methods match and differ was still unclear. During his Ph.D. research, Spelier developed an algorithm to investigate this.

The first person with an answer

Developing that algorithm is necessary to implement the method. If you want to do it by hand, you get pages and pages of equations. Edixhoven’s method uses algebraic geometry. Through clever geometric tricks, you can calculate exactly the whole number points of a given curve. Spelier proved that the Edixhoven-Lido method is better than the old one.

David Holmes, professor of Pure Mathematics and supervisor of Spelier, praises the proof provided. “When you’re the first person to answer a question that everyone in our community wants an answer to, that’s very impressive. Pim proves that these two methods for finding rational points are similar, an issue that really kept mathematicians busy.”

Doing math together

The best part of his Ph.D.? The meetings with his supervisor. After the first year, it was more collaboration than supervision, both for Spelier and Holmes. Spelier says, “Doing math together is still more fun than doing it alone.”

Spelier starts in September as a postdoc in Utrecht and is apparently not yet done with counting. After counting points and curves, he will soon start counting surfaces.

For more insights like this, visit our website at www.international-maths-challenge.com.

Credit of the article given to Leiden University.

Researchers at The University of Western Australia’s ARC Industrial Transformation Research Hub for Transforming Energy Infrastructure through Digital Engineering (TIDE) have made a significant mathematical breakthrough that could help transform ocean research and technology.

Research Fellow Dr. Lachlan Astfalck, from UWA’s School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, and his team developed a new method for spectral density estimation, addressing long-standing biases and paving the way for more accurate oceanographic studies.

The study was published in the journal Biometrika, known for its emphasis on original methodological and theoretical contributions of direct or potential value in applications.

“Understanding the ocean is crucial for numerous fields, including offshore engineering, climate assessment and modeling, renewable technologies, defense and transport,” Dr. Astfalck said.

“Our new method allows researchers and industry professionals to advance ocean technologies with greater confidence and accuracy.”

Spectral density estimation is a mathematical technique used to measure the energy contribution of oscillatory signals, such as waves and currents, by identifying which frequencies carry the most energy.

“Traditionally, Welch’s estimator has been the go-to method for this analysis due to its ease of use and widespread citation, however this method has an inherent risk of bias, which can distort the expected estimates based on the model’s assumption, a problem often overlooked,” Dr. Astfalck said.

The TIDE team developed the debiased Welch estimator, which uses non-parametric statistical learning to remove these biases.

“Our method improves the accuracy and reliability of spectral calculations without requiring specific assumptions about the data’s shape or distribution, which is particularly useful when dealing with complex data that doesn’t follow known analytical patterns, such as internal tides in oceanic shelf regions,” Dr. Astfalck said.

The new method was recently applied in a TIDE research project by Senior Lecturer at UWA’s Oceans Graduate School and TIDE collaborator, Dr. Matt Rayson, to look at complex non-linear ocean processes.

“The ocean is difficult to measure and understand and the work we are doing is all about uncovering some of those mysteries,” Dr. Rayson said.

“The new method means we can better understand ocean processes, climate models, ocean currents and sediment transport, bringing us closer to developing the next generation of numerical ocean models.

For more insights like this, visit our website at www.international-maths-challenge.com.

Credit of the article given to University of Western Australia.

Atomic shapes are so simple that they can’t be broken down any further. Mathematicians are trying to build a “periodic table” of these shapes, and they hope artificial intelligence can help.

Mathematicians attempting to build a “periodic table” of shapes have turned to artificial intelligence for help – but say they don’t understand how it works or whether it can be 100 per cent reliable.

Tom Coates at Imperial College London and his colleagues are working to classify shapes known as Fano varieties, which are so simple that they can’t be broken down into smaller components. Just as chemists arranged elements in the periodic table by their atomic weight and group to reveal new insights, the researchers hope that organising these “atomic” shapes by their various properties will help in understanding them.

The team has assigned each atomic shape a sequence of numbers derived from features such as the number of holes it has or the extent to which it twists around itself. This acts as a bar code to identify it.

Coates and his colleagues have now created an AI that can predict certain properties of these shapes from their bar code numbers alone, with an accuracy of 98 per cent – suggesting a relationship that some mathematicians intuitively thought might be real, but have found impossible to prove.

Unfortunately, there is a vast gulf between demonstrating that something is very often true and mathematically proving that it is always so. While the team suspects a one-to-one connection between each shape and its bar code, the mathematics community is “nowhere close” to proving this, says Coates.

“In pure mathematics, we don’t regard anything as true unless we have an actual proof written down on a piece of paper, and no advances in our understanding of machine learning will get around this problem,” says team member Alexander Kasprzyk at the University of Nottingham, UK.

Even without a proven link between the Fano varieties and bar codes, Kasprzyk says that the AI has let the team organise atomic shapes in a way that begins to mimic the periodic table, so that when you read from left to right, or up and down, there seem to be generalisable patterns in the geometry of the shapes.

“We had no idea that would be true, we had no idea how to begin doing it,” says Kasprzyk. “We probably would still not have had any idea about this in 50 years’ time. Frankly, people have been trying to study these things for 40 years and failing to get to a picture like this.”

The team hopes to refine the model to the point where missing spaces in its periodic table could point to the existence of unknown shapes, or where clustering of shapes could lead to logical categorisation, resulting in a better understanding and new ideas that could create a method of proof. “It clearly knows more things than we know, but it’s so mysterious right now,” says team member Sara Veneziale at Imperial College London.

Graham Niblo at the University of Southampton, UK, who wasn’t involved in the research, says that the work is akin to forming an accurate picture of a cello or a French horn just from the sound of a G note being played – but he stresses that humans will still need to tease understanding from the results provided by AI and create robust and conclusive proofs of these ideas.

“AI has definitely got uncanny abilities. But in the same way that telescopes didn’t put astronomers out of work, AI doesn’t put mathematicians out of work,” he says. “It just gives us a new tool that allows us to explore parts of the mathematical landscape that were out of reach, or, like a microscope, that were too obscure for us to notice with our current understanding.”

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Matthew Sparkes *

Proofs, the central tenet of mathematics, occasionally have errors in them. Could computers stop this from happening, asks mathematician Emily Riehl.

Computer proof assistants can verify that mathematical proofs are correct

One miserable morning in 2017, in the third year of my tenure-track job as a mathematics professor, I woke up to a worrying email. It was from a colleague and he questioned the proof of a key theorem in a highly cited paper I had co-authored. “I had always kind of assumed that this was probably not true in general, though I have no proof either way. Did I miss something?” he asked. The proof, he noted, appeared to rest on a tacit assumption that was not warranted.

Much to my alarm and embarrassment, I realised immediately that my colleague was correct. After an anxious week working to get to the bottom of my mistake, it turned out I was very lucky. The theorem was true; it just needed a new proof, which my co-authors and I supplied in a follow-up paper. But if the theorem had been false, the whole edifice of consequences “proven” using it would have come crashing down.

The essence of mathematics is the concept of proof: a combination of assumed axioms and logical inferences that demonstrate the truth of a mathematical statement. Other mathematicians can then attempt to follow the argument for themselves to identify any holes or convince themselves that the statement is indeed true. Patched up in this way, theorems originally proven by the ancient Greeks about the infinitude of primes or the geometry of planar triangles remain true today – and anyone can see the arguments for why this must be.

Proofs have meant that mathematics has largely avoided the replication crises pervading other sciences, where the results of landmark studies have not held up when the experiments were conducted again. But as my experience shows, mistakes in the literature still occur. Ideally, a false claim, like the one I made, would be caught by the peer review process, where a submitted paper is sent to an expert to “referee”. In practice, however, the peer review process in mathematics is less than perfect – not just because experts can make mistakes themselves, but also because they often do not check every step in a proof.

This is not laziness: theorems at the frontiers of mathematics can be dauntingly technical, so much so that it can take years or even decades to confirm the validity of a proof. The mathematician Vladimir Voevodsky, who received a Fields medal, the discipline’s highest honour, noted that “a technical argument by a trusted author, which is hard to check and looks similar to arguments known to be correct, is hardly ever checked in detail”. After several experiences in which mistakes in his proofs took over a decade to be resolved – a long time for something to sit in logical limbo – Voevodsky’s subsequent crisis of confidence led him to take the unusual step of abandoning his “curiosity-driven research” to develop a computer program that could verify the correctness of his work.

This kind of computer program is known as a proof assistant, though it might be better called a “proof checker”. It can verify that a string of text proves the stated theorem. The proof assistant knows the methods of logical reasoning and is equipped with a library of proofs of standard results. It will accept a proof only after satisfying each step in the reasoning process, with no shortcuts of the sort that human experts often use.

For instance, a computer can verify that there are infinitely many prime numbers by validating the following proof, which is an adaptation of Greek mathematician Euclid’s argument. The human mathematician first tells the computer exactly what is being claimed – in this case that for any natural number N there is always some prime number p that is larger. The human then tells the computer the formula, defining p to be the minimum prime factor of the number formed by multiplying all the natural numbers up to N together and adding 1, represented as N! + 1.

For the computer proof assistant to make sense of this, it needs a library that contains definitions of the basic arithmetic operations. It also needs proofs of theorems, like the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which tells us that every natural number can be factored uniquely into a product of primes. The proof assistant then demands a proof that this prime number p is greater than N. This is argued by contradiction – a technique where following an assumption to its conclusion leads to something that cannot possibly be true, demonstrating that the original assumption was false. In this case, if p is less than or equal to N, it should be a factor of both N! + 1 and N!. Some simple mathematics says this means that p must also be a factor of 1, which is absurd.

Computer proof assistants can be used to verify proofs that are so long that human referees are unable to check every step. In 1998, for example, Samuel Ferguson and Thomas Hales announced a proof of Johannes Kepler’s 1611 conjecture that the most efficient way to pack spheres into three-dimensional space is the familiar “cannonball” packing. When their result was accepted for publication in 2005 it came with a caveat: the journal’s reviewers attested to “a strong degree of conviction of the essential correctness of this proof approach” – they declined to certify that every step was correct.

Ferguson and Hales’s proof was based on a strategy proposed by László Fejes Tóth in 1953, which reduced the Kepler conjecture to an optimisation problem in a finite number of variables. Ferguson and Hales figured out how to subdivide this optimisation problem into a few thousand cases that could be solved by linear programming, which explains why human referees felt unable to vouch for the correctness of each calculation. In frustration, Hales launched a formalisation project, where a team of mathematicians and computer scientists meticulously verified every logical and computational step in the argument. The resulting 22-author paper was published in 2017 to as much fanfare as the original proof announcement.

Computer proof assistants can also be used to verify results in subfields that are so technical that only specialists understand the meaning of the central concepts. Fields medallist Peter Scholze spent a year working out the proof of a theorem that he wasn’t quite sure he believed and doubted anyone else would have the stamina to check. To be sure that his reasoning was correct before building further mathematics on a shaky foundation, Scholze posed a formalisation challenge in a SaiBlog post entitled the “liquid tensor experiment” in December 2020. The mathematics involved was so cutting edge that it took 60,000 lines of code to formalise the last five lines of the proof – and all the background results that those arguments relied upon – but nevertheless this project was completed and the proof confirmed this past July by a team led by Johan Commelin.

Could computers just write the proofs themselves, without involving any human mathematicians? At present, large language models like ChatGPT can fluently generate mathematical prose and even output it in LaTeX, a typesetting program for mathematical writing. However, the logic of these “proofs” tends to be nonsense. Researchers at Google and elsewhere are looking to pair large language models with automatically generated formalised proofs to guarantee the correctness of the mathematical arguments, though initial efforts are hampered by sparse training sets – libraries of formalised proofs are much smaller than the collective mathematical output. But while machine capabilities are relatively limited today, auto-formalised maths is surely on its way.

In thinking about how the human mathematics community might wish to collaborate with computers in the future, we should return to the question of what a proof is for. It’s never been solely about separating true statements from false ones, but about understanding why the mathematical world is the way it is. While computers will undoubtedly help humans check their work and learn to think more clearly – it’s a much more exacting task to explain mathematics to a computer than it is to explain it to a kindergartener – understanding what to make of it all will always remain a fundamentally human endeavour.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Emily Riehl*