This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Cambridge Maths Students and Applicants

I know a proof. I just meant was a proof in Part III this year or any other recent year?

Not this year. You'll have to ask someone else about previous years, most people only attend Part III lectures for one year... :wink:

Reply 2141

lopterton

2

Original post by stripy_and_nice

Has anyone here applied to sit a Part III paper on an area of their own choosing, e.g. not even on the notes of a course given in a previous year?

If so, I'd be interested to hear your experiences. I've read Tom Körner's guide, and sitting a paper on material in a chosen book, on an area not taught at Part III, seems as if it could be amazingly useful preparation for doing a PhD.

What kind of help do you get, or obstacles do you experience, in choosing a field, getting a paper set, and then studying the stuff?

Bump! Does anyone know how this works? Or does it happen only rarely in practice?

Maybe it happens so rarely that it never happens at all?

Reply 2142

maltodextrin

5

Original post by tommm

Got two alphas wooooo.

Seriously?

Have you?

Did you get any epsilons?

Reply 2143

Dirac Spinor

10

Posting in case people haven't seen this.

Reply 2144

glowinglight

Original post by ben-smith

Posting in case people haven't seen this.

Whenever I read anything by Gowers, I get turned off by the way he writes so terribly, awfully, embarrassingly badly but thinks he writes so glitteringly well.

Sure, he knows how to use punctuation and choose among synonyms for clarity and brevity. I'm sure there's a sense in which he writes better than most. He doesn't use the passive voice much. We all know he's the grandson of Ernest Gowers, author of The Complete Plain Words. But his style and his tone, man! He truly hasn't got a clue! What's the point of not wasting words in phrases and clauses if you waste whole sentences, and can't stop telling people what you're not telling them, and presenting other sorts of stylistic horrors, again and again and...oh sorry, I fell asleep.

His writing is full of first-person comments, and things like "Now I've said this, you'll be wondering what I mean. But I'll come back to that later"...and then another version of the same thing a few lines later...and then another... His favourite words are "I", "me" and "myself", and one of his favourite devices is "I'm sure you thought I meant this, or that I was going to say that, but if you did, you'd be wrong". His writing is really really bad.

Someone please tell this guy to say what he means, and quit the self-commentary. Get an agent. Find a manuscript washer. Get acquainted with the meaning of "show, don't tell". If he's going to learn to write better, he's going to have to recognise how badly he writes now. His style chases people away - apart from people who'd worship his shopping-list in the knowledge that he got a Fields Medal four sessions ago.(1) And who wants to write for an audience like that? No, wait a minute...

Meanwhile, a fair proportion of the comments he allows on his blog are from fawning individuals who declare that the way he's said it might rain tomorrow, or the way he's pointed out the amazing fact that bureaucrats speak bureaucratese, or that most people in the population don't know much mathematics, is sooooo scintillatingly brilliant. He actually comes across as someone who's bored stiff in his imagined superiority and has way too much time on his hands. If you're reading this, Tim: get yourself an editor, mate!

(1) Never mind that the Ecole Normale Superieure have got on the score-card in all three sessions since 1998, while Britain's scored a triple duck.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 2145

around

13

Original post by glowinglight

words

you seem terribly up yourself.

Reply 2146

glowinglight

Original post by around

you seem terribly up yourself.

Who, moi? Or the guy who wrote "A son was born to us" to describe what happened when him and his missus had a sprog? You don't think that's, like, y'know, pretentious, or phraseologically up-self?

Seriously, if he were someone who had a different profile, people wouldn't think his thoughts were so great. People would be telling him he's up himself.

But ta for your comments on the content of what I said! (See, I can do sarcasm - sophis, huh? :smile:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 2147

Zhen Lin

12

Original post by glowinglight

Whenever I read anything by Gowers, I get turned off by the way he writes so terribly, awfully, embarrassingly badly but thinks he writes so glitteringly well.

Sure, he knows how to use punctuation and choose among synonyms for clarity and brevity. I'm sure there's a sense in which he writes better than most. He doesn't use the passive voice much.

What on earth is with traditionalists and disavowing the passive voice?

His writing is full of first-person comments,

Isn't that the point? It's supposed to be conversational. A lot better than saying "we" all the time and meaning "I", like what many mathematicians end up doing...

Reply 2148

Dirac Spinor

10

Original post by glowinglight

(1) Never mind that the Ecole Normale Superieure have got on the score-card in all three sessions since 1998, while Britain's scored a triple duck.

Massive who cares.
Why would that matter to anyone?

Reply 2149

nuodai

17

Original post by Zhen Lin

Isn't that the point? It's supposed to be conversational. A lot better than saying "we" all the time and meaning "I", like what many mathematicians end up doing...

Or, indeed, "you".

I'm a massive user of "we" in mathematical writing. It's annoying but hard to replace.

Reply 2150

glowinglight

Original post by Zhen Lin

What on earth is with traditionalists and disavowing the passive voice?

Usage of the passive soon reaches a threshold above which a piece of writing begins to sound laboured, unclear, and weighed down with a high wrapper-to-signal ratio. The active voice is more punchy and less wordy: "A did B" rather than "B was done by A". Nonetheless there are times when avoiding it sounds wrong; in which case, use it. I don't think there's a traditional vs modern thing going on here.

Original post by Zhen Lin

His writing is full of first-person comments

Isn't that the point? It's supposed to be conversational. A lot better than saying "we" all the time and meaning "I", like what many mathematicians end up doing...

Note that "we" is also first-person. You are missing the point. Heavy use of "I", except perhaps in a journal or memoir, makes the writer sound like a self-loving egomaniac. Gowers's blog suffers from this. A blog is different from other genres, and yes you can call it conversational, but there's a limit. This, however, is only part of it. It's not just the "I". His work - and the particular text that ben-smith linked to - suffers from terrible terrible straggliness, with self-commentary all over the place...and well, maybe you should read my third paragraph again. People who talk like that in conversation would be considered muddle-minded and in their own world. In the referenced text by Gowers, the first sentence works fine. The awful style starts with the second: "That sounds like the beginning of a joke you’ve heard twenty times already, but it isn’t." And then further down in the paragraph, we get "In case you have no idea what I’m talking about". And in the next paragraph, "So it might seem a bit odd that in this post I’m going to attempt to help people preparing for Part IA". After that, we read, "However, my aim is not just to give the answers. Rather, I want to explain in as much detail as I can (without getting tedious) how I come up with the answers. I haven’t yet started thinking about the questions, so I’m not sure how that is going to work out". And so on and on and on. His grammar and punctuation are fine; his style is the pits. Any decent editor would tell him to show, not tell. They'd cut all of the above out - snip snip snip. Do you get what I mean about his compulsive self-commentary? His writing is full of "you probably thought I meant something completely different, so I'll tell you why I didn't". Without an editor, he's completely at sea stylistically, as if he's talking to himself.

Reply 2151

Zhen Lin

12

Original post by nuodai

Or, indeed, "you".

I'm a massive user of "we" in mathematical writing. It's annoying but hard to replace.

I had a paragraph using "I" in my essay (because I was introducing my own notation)... it looked incongruous compared to everything else, so I decided to change it to "we". If only English were pro-drop...

Reply 2152

Mr Dactyl

Original post by glowinglight

... as if he's talking to himself.

I don't think it's nearly so bad as you're making it sound. He wants to get his thought processes - his internal monologue - over in these articles, it spills over a bit. Meh. Still really useful material.

Reply 2153

glowinglight

Original post by Mr Dactyl

I don't think it's nearly so bad as you're making it sound. He wants to get his thought processes - his internal monologue - over in these articles, it spills over a bit. Meh. Still really useful material.

His thought processes when answering an exam question - if that's the topic, great. But virtually all his blog posts and all the other unedited texts he comes out with, on whatever topic, are overflowing with parenthetical commentary telling us about the thought processes that afflict him when he's writing what he's writing, which is different. No reader needs that. I've given some examples above. It makes for very straggly writing. And almost always the theme of the commentary is that the poor stupid reader probably thought he meant something different, so he'd better explain. Doesn't matter what the topic is - politics, whatever. It's like when someone is sarcastic all the time - it's safe to conclude it's compulsive. I don't doubt that he's got some useful stuff to communicate. Some of his writing that's been through an editor's wringer is useful. But he should get a grip and read a couple of books on writing style. He should start by recognising that he's a beginner in this department at the moment.

Reply 2154

nuodai

17

Original post by glowinglight

His thought processes when answering an exam question - if that's the topic, great. But virtually all his blog posts and all the other unedited texts he comes out with, on whatever topic, are overflowing with parenthetical commentary telling us about the thought processes that afflict him when he's writing what he's writing, which is different. No reader needs that. I've given some examples above. It makes for very straggly writing. And almost always the theme of the commentary is that the poor stupid reader probably thought he meant something different, so he'd better explain. Doesn't matter what the topic is - politics, whatever. It's like when someone is sarcastic all the time - it's safe to conclude it's compulsive. I don't doubt that he's got some useful stuff to communicate. Some of his writing that's been through an editor's wringer is useful. But he should get a grip and read a couple of books on writing style. He should start by recognising that he's a beginner in this department at the moment.

Although I agree that his posts can be too waffly and verbose, I think you've got too into this argument and have detached yourself from the reality of the situation slightly. It's a blog by a mathematician; it's not a newspaper written by journalists. He's not getting any money for it, he's just spilling his thoughts for people who want to read it to read it. If you (like I) don't like his writing style, that's your (and my) problem, not his.

What a dull world this would be if everything published on the internet had to go through an editor.

Reply 2155

marers

11

On average, do IB Quantum Mechanics questions take a relatively long time, or is it just me? Same with IA Dynamics and Relativity. Or do some people have a different experience?

Reply 2156

Zhen Lin

12

Original post by nuodai

Although I agree that his posts can be too waffly and verbose, I think you've got too into this argument and have detached yourself from the reality of the situation slightly. It's a blog by a mathematician; it's not a newspaper written by journalists. He's not getting any money for it, he's just spilling his thoughts for people who want to read it to read it. If you (like I) don't like his writing style, that's your (and my) problem, not his.

What a dull world this would be if everything published on the internet had to go through an editor.

+1.

But I think it's fair enough to point out when something tricky (in the literal sense) has been said. Even Bourbaki does this: dangerous bend symbol.

Reply 2157

Mr Dactyl

Original post by nuodai

It's a blog by a mathematician; it's not a newspaper written by journalists. .

Hear, hear.

Original post by marers

On average, do IB Quantum Mechanics questions take a relatively long time, or is it just me? Same with IA Dynamics and Relativity. Or do some people have a different experience?

I think Quantum questions can be pretty lengthy, don't remember being very troubled by dynamics though.

Reply 2158

Goldfishy

8

I was wondering what you guys think is the best strategy for just for maximising raw marks in the Tripos is?

I'm doing Compsci + Maths in IA only and I'm sitting only papers 1 and 2 (V&M & Analysis I; DE's and Probability), and our marking doesn't rely on alphas/betas. Instead we are just looking at raw marks.

Considering many mathmos will be focusing on alphas, would it be a good idea to do lots of Section I questions/attempt fragments of as many questions as possible? Cheers :smile:

Reply 2159

nuodai

17

Original post by Goldfishy

I was wondering what you guys think is the best strategy for just for maximising raw marks in the Tripos is?

Do loads of questions.

Original post by Goldfishy

I'm doing Compsci + Maths in IA only and I'm sitting only papers 1 and 2 (V&M & Analysis I; DE's and Probability), and our marking doesn't rely on alphas/betas. Instead we are just looking at raw marks.

Are you sure about that? It's certainly possible, but I'd find it easier to believe that the merit mark is used rather than the raw mark.

Original post by Goldfishy

Considering many mathmos will be focusing on alphas, would it be a good idea to do lots of Section I questions/attempt fragments of as many questions as possible? Cheers :smile:

Make very very sure (i.e. find a reliable source) that alphas and betas aren't taken into account before going too crazy with this*. But if you want to maximise raw marks then you should simply answer as much as you can without worrying too much about complete answers (the first 10 marks of a question are easier to get than the second 10). If you want to maximise merit marks then you should do as many complete long questions as possible and only do short questions if you're sure of a beta.

*I mean very sure. No doubt you're aware of how the system works, but the difference between 320 raw marks with 16 alphas and 8 betas, and 320 raw marks with 4 alphas and 16 betas, is (for a mathmo) the difference between a mid-2:2 and a mid-1st.

Cambridge Maths Students and Applicants

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you