The journal hall of shame

As you all know, my field is Combinatorics. I care about it. I blog about it endlessly. I want to see it blossom. I am happy to see it accepted by the broad mathematical community. It’s a joy to see it represented at (most) top universities and recognized with major awards. It’s all mostly good.

Of course, not everyone is on board. This is normal. Changing views is hard. Some people and institutions continue insisting that Combinatorics is mostly a trivial nonsense (or at least large parts of it). This is an old fight best not rehashed again.

What I thought I would do is highlight a few journals which are particularly hostile to Combinatorics. I also make some comments below.

Hall of shame

The list below is in alphabetical order and includes only general math journals.

(1) American Journal of Mathematics

The journal had a barely mediocre record of publishing in Combinatorics until 2008 (10 papers out of 6544, less than one per 12 years of existence, mostly in the years just before 2008). But then something snapped. Zero Combinatorics papers since 2009. What happened??

The journal keeps publishing in other areas, obviously. Since 2009 it published the total of 696 papers. And yet not a single Combinatorics paper was deemed good enough. Really? Some 10 years ago while writing this blog post I emailed the AJM Editor Christopher Sogge asking if the journal has a policy or an internal bias against the area. The editorial coordinator replied:

I spoke to an editor: the AJM does not have any bias against combinatorics.  [2013]

You could’ve fooled me… Maybe start by admitting you have a problem.

(2) Cambridge Journal of Mathematics

This is a relative newcomer, established just ten years ago in 2013. CJM claims to:

publish papers of the highest quality, spanning the range of mathematics with an emphasis on pure mathematics.

Out of the 93 papers to date, it has published precisely Zero papers in Combinatorics. Yes, in Cambridge, MA which has the most active combinatorics seminar that I know (and used to co-organize twice a week). Perhaps, Combinatorics is not “pure” enough or simply lacks “papers of highest quality”.

Curiously, Jacob Fox is one of the seven “Associate Editors”. This makes me wonder about the CJM editorial policy, as in can any editor accept any paper they wish or the decision has to made by a majority of editors? Or, perhaps, each paper is accepted only by a unanimous vote? And how many Combinatorics papers were provisionally accepted only to be rejected by such a vote of the editorial board? Most likely, we will never know the answers…

(3) Compositio Mathematica

The journal also had a mediocre record in Combinatorics until 2006 (12 papers out of 2661). None among the last 1172 papers (since 2007). Oh, my… I wrote in this blog post that at least the journal is honest about Combinatorics being low priority. But I think it still has no excuse. Read the following sentence on their front page:

Papers on other topics are welcome if they are of broad interest.

So, what happened in 2007? Papers in Combinatorics suddenly lost broad interest? Quanta Magazine must be really confused by this all…

(4) Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS

Very selective. Naturally. Zero papers in Combinatorics. Yes, since 1959 they published the grand total of 528 papers. No Combinatorics papers made the cut. I had a very limited interaction with the journal when I submitted my paper which was rejected immediately. Here is what I got:

Unfortunately, the journal has such a severe backlog that we decided at the last meeting of the editorial board not to take any new submissions for the next few months, except possibly for the solution of a major open problem. Because of this I prefer to reject you paper right now. I am sorry that your paper arrived during that period. [2015]

I am guessing the editor (very far from my area) assumed that the open problem that I resolved in that paper could not possibly be “major” enough. Because it’s in Combinatorics, you see… But whatever, let’s get back to ZERO. Really? In the past 50 years Paris has been a major research center in my area, one of the best places to do Enumerative, Asymptotics and Algebraic Combinatorics. And none of that work was deemed worthy by this venerable journal??

Note: I used this link for a quick guide to top journals. It’s biased, but really any other ranking would work just as well. I used the MathSciNet to determine whether papers are in Combinatorics (search for MSC Primary = 05)

How should we understand this?

It’s all about making an effort. Some leading general journals like Acta, Advances, Annals, Duke, Inventiones, JAMS, JEMS, Math. Ann., Math. Z., etc. found a way to attract and publish Combinatorics papers. Mind you they publish very few papers in the area, but whatever biases they have, they apparently want to make sure combinatorialists would consider sending their best work to these journals.

The four hall of shamers clearly found a way to repel papers in Combinatorics, whether by exhibiting an explicit bias, not having a combinatorialist on the editorial board, never encouraging best people in the area to submit, or using random people to give “quick opinions” on work far away from their area of expertise.

Most likely, there are several “grandfathered areas” in each journal, so with the enormous growth of submissions there is simply no room for other areas. Here is a breakdown of the top five areas in Publ. Math. IHES, helpfully compiled by ZbMATH (out of 528, remember?):

Of course, for the CJM, the whole “grandfathered areas” reasoning does not apply. Here is their breakdown of the top five areas (out of 93). See any similarities? Looks like this is a distribution of areas that the editors think are “very very important”:

When 2/3 of your papers are in just two areas, “spanning the range of mathematics” this journal is not. Of course, it really doesn’t matter how the four hall of shamers managed to achieve their perfect record for so many years — the results speak for themselves.

What should you do about it?

Not much, obviously, unless you are an editor in either of these four journals. Please don’t boycott them — it’s counterproductive and they are already boycotting you. If you work in Combinatorics, you should consider submitting your best work there, especially if you have tenure and have nothing to lose by waiting. This was the advice I gave vis-à-vie the Annals and it still applies.

But perhaps you can also shame these journals. This was also my advice on MDPI Mathematics. Here some strategy is useful, so perhaps do this. Any time you are asked for a referee report or for a quick opinion, ask the editor: Does your journal have a bias against Combinatorics? If they want your help they will say “No”. If you write a positive opinion or a report, follow up and ask if the paper is accepted. If they say “No”, ask if they still believe the journal has no bias. Aim to exhaust them!

More broadly, tell everyone you know that these four journals have an anti-Combinatorics bias. As I quoted before, Noga Alon thinks that “mathematics should be considered as one unit“. Well, as long as these journals don’t publish in Combinatorics, I will continue to disagree, and so should you. Finally, if you know someone on the editorial board of these four journals, please send them a link to this blog post and ask to write a comment. We can all use some explanation…

How I chose Enumerative Combinatorics

Apologies for not writing anything for awhile. After Feb 24, the math part of the “life and math” slogan lost a bit of relevance, while the actual events were stupefying to the point when I had nothing to say about the life part. Now that the shock subsided, let me break the silence by telling an old personal story which is neither relevant to anything happening right now nor a lesson to anyone. Sometimes a story is just a story…

My field

As the readers of this blog know, I am a Combinatorialist. Not a “proud one”. Just “a combinatorialist”. To paraphrase a military slogan “there are many fields like this one, but this one is mine”. While I’ve been defending my field for years, writing about its struggles, and often defining it, it’s not because this field is more important than others. Rather, because it’s so frequently misunderstood.

In fact, I have worked in other (mostly adjacent) fields, but that was usually because I was curious. Curious what’s going on in other areas, curious if they had tools to help me with my problems. Curious if they had problems that could use my tools. I would go to seminars in other fields, read papers, travel to conferences, make friends. Occasionally this strategy paid off and I would publish something in another field. Much more often nothing ever came out of that. It was fun regardless.

Anyway, I wanted to work in combinatorics for as long as I can remember, since I was about 15 or so. There is something inherently discrete about the way I see the world, so much that having additional structure is just obstructing the view. Here is how Gian-Carlo Rota famously put it:

Combinatorics is an honest subject. […] You either have the right number or you haven’t. You get the feeling that the result you have discovered is forever, because it’s concrete. [Los Alamos Science, 1985]

I agree. Also, I really like to count. When prompted, I always say “I work in Combinatorics” even if sometimes I really don’t. But in truth, the field is much too large and not unified, so when asked to be more specific (this rarely happens) I say “Enumerative Combinatorics“. What follows is a short story of how I made the choice.

Family vacation

When I was about 18, Andrey Zelevinsky (ז״ל) introduced me and Alex Postnikov to Israel Gelfand and asked what should we be reading if we want to do combinatorics. Unlike most leading mathematicians in Russia, Gelfand had a surprisingly positive view on the subject (see e.g. his quotes here). He suggested we both read Macdonald’s book, which was translated into Russian by Zelevinsky himself just a few years earlier. The book was extremely informative but dry as a fig and left little room for creativity. I read a large chunk of it and concluded that if this is what modern combinatorics looks like, I want to have nothing to do with it. Alex had a very different impression, I think.

Next year, my extended family decided to have a vacation on a Russian “river cruise”. I remember a small passenger boat which left Moscow river terminal, navigated a succession of small rivers until it reached Volga. From there, the boat had a smooth gliding all the way to the Caspian Sea. The vacation was about three weeks of a hot Summer torture with the only relief served by mouth-watering fresh watermelons.

What made it worse, there was absolutely nothing to see. Much of the way Volga is enormously wide, sometimes as wide as the English channel. Most of the time you couldn’t even see the river banks. The cities distinguished themselves only by an assortment of Lenin statues, but were unremarkable otherwise. Volgograd was an exception with its very impressive tallest statue in Europe, roughly as tall as the Statue of Liberty when combined with its pedestal. Impressive for sure, but not worth the trip. Long story short, the whole cruise vacation was dreadfully boring.

One good book can make a difference

While most of my relatives occupied themselves by reading crime novels or playing cards, I was reading a math book, the only book I brought with me. This was Stanley’s Enumerative Combinatorics (vol. 1) whose Russian translation came out just a few months earlier. So I read it cover-to-cover, but doing only the easiest exercises just to make sure I understand what’s going on. That book changed everything…

Midway through, when I was reading about linear extensions of posets in Ch. 3 with their obvious connections to standard Young tableaux and the hook-length formula (which I already knew by then), I had an idea. From Macdonald’s book, I remembered the q-analogue of #SYT via the “charge“, a statistics introduced by Lascoux and Schützenberger to give a combinatorial interpretation of Kostka polynomials, and which works even for skew Young diagram shapes. I figured that skew shapes are generic enough, and there should be a generalization of the charge to all posets. After several long days filled with some tedious calculations by hand, I came up with both the statement and the proof of the q-analogue of the number of linear extensions.

I wrote the proof neatly in my notebook with a clear intent to publish my “remarkable discovery”, and continued reading. In Ch. 4, all of a sudden, I read the “P-partition theory” that I just invented by myself. It came with various applications and connections to other problems, and was presented so well, much nicer than I would have!

After some extreme disappointment, I learned from the notes that the P-partition theory was a large portion of Stanley’s own Ph.D. thesis, which he wrote before I was born. For a few hours, I did nothing but meditate, staring at the vast water surrounding me and ignoring my relatives who couldn’t care less what I was doing anyway. I was trying to think if there is a lesson in this fiasco.

It pays to be positive and self-assure, I suppose, in a way that only a teenager can be. That day I concluded that I am clearly doing something right, definitely smarter than everyone else even if born a little too late. More importantly, I figured that Enumerative Combinatorics done “Stanley-style” is really the right area for me…

Epilogue

I stopped thinking that I am smarter than everyone else within weeks, as soon as I learned more math. I no longer believe I was born too late. I did end up doing a lot of Enumerative Combinatorics. Much later I became Richard Stanley’s postdoc for a short time and a colleague at MIT for a long time. Even now, I continue writing papers on the numbers of linear extensions and standard Young tableaux. Occasionally, I also discuss their q-analogues (like in my most recent paper). I still care and it’s still the right area for me…

Some years later I realized that historically, the “charge” and Stanley’s q-statistics were not independent in a sense that both are generalizations of the major index by Percy MacMahon. In his revision of vol. 1, Stanley moved the P-partition theory up to Ch. 3, where it belongs IMO. In 2001, he received the Steele’s Prize for Mathematical Exposition for the book that changed everything…

Are we united in anything?

Unity here, unity there, unity shmunity is everywhere. You just can’t avoid hearing about it. Every day, no matter the subject, somebody is going to call for it. Be it in Ukraine or Canada, Taiwan or Haiti, everyone is calling for unity. President Biden in his Inaugural Address called for it eight times by my count. So did former President Bush on every recent societal issue: here, there, everywhere. So did Obama and Reagan. I am sure just about every major US politician made the same call at some point. And why not? Like the “world peace“, the unity is assumed to be a universal good, or at least an inspirational if quickly forgettable goal.

Take the Beijing Olympic Games, which proudly claims that their motto “demonstrates unity and a collective effort” towards “the goal of pursuing world unity, peace and progress”. Come again? While The New York Times isn’t buying the whole “world unity” thing and calls the games “divisive” it still thinks that “Opening Ceremony [is] in Search of Unity.” Vox is also going there, claiming that the ceremony “emphasized peace, world unity, and the people around the world who have battled the pandemic.” So it sounds to me that despite all the politics, both Vox and the Times think that this mythical unity is something valuable, right? Well, ok, good to know…

Closer to home, you see the same themes said about the International Congress of Mathematicians to be held in St. Petersburg later this year. Here is Arkady Dvorkovich, co-chair of the Executive Organizing Committee and former Deputy Prime Minister of Russia: “It seems to us that Russia will be able to truly unite mathematicians from all over the world“. Huh? Are you sure? Unite in what exactly? Because even many Russian mathematicians are not on board with having the ICM in St. Petersburg. And among those from “all over the world”, quite a few are very openly boycotting the congress, so much that even the IMU started to worry. Doesn’t “unity” mean “for all”, as in ∀?

Unity of mathematics

Frequent readers of this blog can probably guess where I stand on the “unity”. Even in my own area of Combinatorics, I couldn’t find much of it at all. I openly mocked “the feeling of unity of mathematics” argument in favor of some conjectures. I tried but could never understand Noga Alon’s claim that “mathematics should be considered as one unit” other than a political statement by a former PC Chair of the 2006 ICM.

So, about this “unity of mathematics”. Like, really? All of mathematics? Quick, tell me what exactly do the Stochastic PDEs, Algebraic Number Theory, Enumerative Combinatorics and Biostatistics have in common? Anything comes to mind? Anything at all? Ugh. Let’s make another experiment. Say, I tell you that only two of these four areas have Fields medals. Can you guess which ones? Oh, you can? Really, it was that easy?? Doesn’t this cut against all of this alleged “unity”?

Anyway, let’s be serious. Mathematics is not a unit. It’s not even a “patterned tapestry” of connected threads. It’s a human endeavor. It’s an assorted collection of scientific pursuits unconstrained by physical experiments. Some of them are deep, some shallow, some are connected to others, and some are motivated by real world applications. You check the MSC 2020 classification, and there is everything under the sun, 224 pages in total. It’s preposterous to look for and expect to find some unity there. There is none to be found.

Let me put it differently. Take poetry. Like math, it’s a artistic endeavor. Poems are written by the people and for the people. To enjoy. To recall when in need or when in a mood. Like math papers. Now, can anyone keep a straight face and say “unity of poetry“? Of course not. If anything, it’s the opposite. In poetry, having a distinctive voice is celebrated. Diverse styles are lauded. New forms are created. Strong emotions are evoked. That’s the point. Why would math be any different then?

What exactly unites us?

Mathematicians, I mean. Not much, I suppose, to the contrary of math politicians’ claims:

I like to think that increasing breadth in research will help the mathematical sciences to recognize our essential unity. (Margaret Wright, SIAM President, 1996)

Huh? Isn’t this like saying that space exploration will help foster cross-cultural understanding? Sounds reasonable until you actually think about what is being said…

Even the style of doing research is completely different. Some prove theorems, some make heavy computer computations, some make physical experiments, etc. At the end, some write papers and put them on the arXiv, some write long books full of words (e.g. mathematical historians), some submit to competitive conferences (e.g. in theoretical computer science), some upload software packages and experimental evidence to some data depositary. It’s all different. Don’t be alarmed, this is normal.

In truth, very little unites us. Some mathematicians work at large state universities, others at small private liberal arts colleges with a completely different approach to teaching. Some have a great commitment to math education, some spend every waking hour doing research, while others enjoy frequent fishing trips thanks to tenure. Some go into university administration or math politics, while others become journal editors.

In truth, only two things unites us — giant math societies like the AMS and giant conferences like ICMs and joint AMS/MAA/SIAM meetings. Let’s treat them separately, but before we go there, let’s take a detour just to see what an honest unrestricted public discourse sounds like:

What to do about the Olympics

The answer depends on who you ask, obviously. And opinions are abound. I personally don’t care other than the unfortunate fact that 2028 Olympics will be hosted on my campus. But we in math should learn how to be critical, so here is a range of voices that I googled. Do with them as you please.

Some are sort of in favor:

I still believe the Olympics contribute a net benefit to humanity. (Beth Daley, The Conversation, Feb. 2018)

Some are positive if a little ambivalent:

The Games aren’t dead. Not by a longshot. But it’s worth noting that the reason they are alive has strikingly little to do with games, athletes or medals. (L. Jon Wertheim, Time, June 2021)

Some like The New York Times are highly critical, calling it “absurdity”. Some are blunt:

More and more, the international spectacle has become synonymous with overspending, corruption, and autocratic regimes. (Yasmeen Serhan, The Atlantic, Aug. 2021)

yet unwilling to make the leap and call it quits. Others are less shy:

You can’t reform the Olympics. The Olympics are showing us what they are, and what they’ve always been. (Gia Lappe and Jonny Coleman, Jacobin, July 2021)

and

Boil down all the sanctimonious drivel about how edifying the games are, and you’re left with the unavoidable truth: The Olympics wreck lives. (Natalie Shure, The New Republic, July 2021)

What is the ICM

Well, it’s a giant collective effort. A very old tradition. Medals are distributed. Lots of talks. Speakers are told that it’s an honor to be chosen. Universities issue press releases. Yes, like this one. Rich countries set up and give away travel grants. Poor countries scramble to pay for participants. The host country gets dubious PR benefits. A week after it’s over everyone forgets it ever happened. Life goes on.

I went to just one ICM, in Rio in 2018. It was an honor to be invited. But the experience was decidedly mixed. The speakers were terrific mathematicians, all of them. Many were good speakers. A few were dreadful in both content and style. Some figured they are giving talks in their research seminar rather than to a general audience, so I left a couple of such talks in middle. Many talks in parallel sections were not even recorded. What a shame!

The crowds were stupefying. I saw a lot of faces. Some were friendly, of people I hadn’t seen in years, sometimes 20 years. Some were people I knew only by name. It was nice to say hello, to shake their hand. But there were thousands more. Literally. An ocean of people. I was drowning. This was the worst place for an introvert.

While there, I asked a lot of people how did they like the ICM. Some were electrified by the experience and had a decent enough time. Some looked like fish out of the water — when asked they just stared at me incomprehensively silently saying “What are you, an idiot?” Some told me they just went to the opening ceremony and left for the beach for the rest of the ICM. Assaf Naor said that he loved everything. I was so amused by that, I asked if I could quote him. “Yes,” he said, “you can quote me: I loved absolutely every bit of the ICM”. Here we go — not everyone is an introvert.

Whatever happened at the ICM

Unlike the Olympics, math people tend to be shy in their ICM criticism. In his somewhat unfortunately titled but otherwise useful historical book “Mathematicians of the World, Unite!” the author, Guillermo Curbera, largely stays exuberant about the subject. He does mention some critical stories, like this one:

Charlotte Angas Scott reported bluntly on the presentation of papers in the congress, which in her opinion were “usually shockingly bad” since “instead of speaking to the audience, [the lecturer] reads his paper to himself in a monotone that is sometimes hurried, sometimes hesitating, and frequently bored . . . so that he is often tedious and incomprehensible.” (Paris 1900 Chapter, p. 24)

Curbera does mention in passing that the were some controversies: Grothendieck refused to attend ICM Moscow in 1966 for political reasons, Margulis and Novikov were not allowed by the Soviet Union to leave the country to receive their Fields medals. Well, nobody’s perfect, right?

Most reports I found on the web are highly positive. Read, for example, Gil Kalai’s blog posts on the ICM 2018. Everything was great, right? Even Doron Zeilberger, not known for holding his tongue, is mostly positive (about the ICM Beijing in 2002). He does suggest that the invited speakers “should go to a ‘training camp‘” for some sort of teacher training re-education, apparently not seeing the irony, or simply under impression of all those great things in Beijing.

The only (highly controversial) criticism that I found was from Ulf Persson who starts with:

The congresses are by now considered to be monstrous affairs very different from the original intimate gatherings where group pictures could be taken.

He then continues to talk about various personal inconveniences, his misimpressions about the ICM setting, the culture, the city, etc., all in a somewhat insensitive and rather disparaging manner. Apparently, this criticism and misimpressions earned a major smackdown from Marcelo Viana, the ICM 2018 Organizing Committee Chair, who wrote that this was a “piece of bigotry” by somebody who is “poorly informed”. Fair enough. I agree with that and with the EMS President Volker Mehrmann who wrote in the same EMS newsletter that the article was “very counterproductive”. Sure. But an oversized 4 page reaction to an opinion article in a math newsletter from another continent seem indicative that the big boss hates criticism. Because we need all that “unity”, right?

Anyway, don’t hold your breath to see anything critical about the ICM St. Petersburg later this year. Clearly, everything is going to be just fantastic, nothing controversial about it. Right…

What to do about the ICM

Stop having them in the current form. It’s the 21st century, and we are starting the third year of the pandemic. All talks can be moved online so that everyone can watch them either as they happen, or later on YouTube. Let me note that I’ve sat in the bleachers of these makeshift 1000+ people convention center auditoriums where the LaTeX formulas are barely visible. This is what the view is like:

Note that the ICM is not like a sports event — there is literally nothing at stake. Also, there are usually no questions afterwards anyway. You are all better off watching the talks later on your laptop, perhaps even on a x1.5 speed. To get the idea, imagine watching this talk in a huge room full of people…. Even better, we can also spread out these online lectures across the time zones so that people from different countries can participate. Something like this World Relay in Combinatorics.

Really, all that CO₂ burned to get humans halfway across the world to seat in a crowded space is not doing anyone any good. If the Nobel Prizes can be awarded remotely, so can the Fields medals. Tourism value aside, the amount of meaningful person-to-person interaction is so minimal in a large crowd, I am struggling to find a single good reason at all to have these extravaganzas in-person.

What to do about the AMS

I am not a member of any math societies so it’s not my place to tell them what to do. As a frequent contributor to AMS journals and a former editor of one of them, I did call on the AMS to separate its society business form the publishing, but given that their business model hinges on the books and journals they sell, this is unlikely. Still, let me make some quick observations which might be helpful.

The AMS is clearly getting less and less popular. I couldn’t find the exact membership numbers, but their “dues and outreach” earnings have been flat for a while. Things are clearly not going in the right direction, so much that the current AMS President Ruth Charney sent out a survey earlier this week asking people like me why do we not want to join.

People seem to realize that they have many different views on all thing math related and are seeking associations which are a better fit. One notable example is the Just Mathematics Collective which has several notable boycott initiatives. Another is the Association for Mathematical Research formed following various controversies. Note that there is a great deal of disagreements between these two, see e.g. here, there and there.

I feel these are very good developments. It’s healthy to express disagreements on issues you consider important. And while I disagree with other things in the article below, I do agree with this basic premise:

Totalitarian countries have unity. Democratic republics have disagreement. (Kevin Williamson, Against Unity, National Review, Jan. 2021)

So everyone just chill. Enjoy diverse views and opinions. Disagree with the others. And think twice before you call for “unity” of anything, or praise the ephemeral “unity of mathematics”. There is none.

Just when you think it’s over

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past,” memorably wrote William Faulkner. He was right. You really have to give the past some credit — it’s everlasting and all consuming. Just when you think it’s all buried, it keeps coming back like a plague, in the most disturbing way.

The story here is about antisemitism in academia. These days, in my professional life as a mathematician, I rarely get to think about it. As it happens, I’ve written about antisemitic practices in academia and what happened to me on this blog before, and I didn’t plan to revisit the issue. After thirty years of not having to deal with that I was ready let it go… Until today. But let me start slowly.

The symbolism

In American universities, the antisemitism was widespread practice for decades which went out of fashion along with slide rule and French curve. This is extremely well documented. The world at large can be going crazy wild in their Jew-harted, but within confines of a good US university what do I care, right?

The symbolism is still there, of course. If you squint a little you see it all over the place. Like a long-abandoned tombstone in the town center everyone averts their eyes when passing by, a visual reminder of the past nobody wants to think about. Think of a mass murderer Vladimir Lenin very prominently featured in the Red Square and still lauded all over. Or and an even greater mass murderer Joseph Stalin who still has some streets named after him, some statues still standing in front of a museum at his birthplace in Gori, Georgia, and who is buried just a few meters behind Lenin. Thousands of tourists pass by these symbols. Everyone’s happy. Same with past antisemitism — nobody cares…

The news has come to Harvard

When it comes to antisemitic symbolism in academia, it’s worth mentioning Harvard University which stands tall in its obliviousness. For example, a rather beautiful Lowell House is named after Harvard President Lawrence Lowell, who was famous for instituting Jewish quotas. In 2019 the issue was brought up much too often to be ignored. In its infinite wisdom Harvard addressed it by keeping the name but taking down Lowell’s portrait in the dining room. Really! How evenhanded of them — Jews can now feel welcome, totally safe and protected… Not that Harvard learned much of anything from this sordid episode, but that’s to be expected I suppose. After all, Harvard never apologized…

Or take the Birkhoff Library at the Harvard Math Department (where I got my Ph.D.), which is named after George Birkhoff, well known for his antisemitic rhetoric and hiring practices, and whom Albert Einstein called “one of the world’s great anti-Semites.” If you don’t know what I am talking about, read Steve Nadis and S.-T. Yau’s book which is surprisingly honest on the matter.

Of course, some things are too much even for Harvard. James Conant was a Harvard President who followed Lowell both as a president and in his love of Jewish quotas. He is also famous for being a Nazi sympathizer. Although still occasionally honored by Harvard (check named professorship there), apparently this is a source of embarrassment best erased from history and not discussed in a polite company. Other educational institutions are much less skittish, of course. Wikipedia helpfully points to Conant Elementary in Michigan and Conant High School in Illinois. I guess these places are ok with Conant’s legacy.

And now this

Consider the present day case of Yaroslav Shitov which was pointed out to me last week. Shitov is a prolific mathematician lauded by Gil Kalai, by Numberphile, by AMS News blog, and on the pages of Quanta Magazine for his recent work. Turns out, he is a rabid antisemite (among other things). The screenshots below (in Russian) taken from his social media account are so odious I refuse to translate them to give them more credence. In fact, if you can’t read Russian, you are better off — even reading this dreck makes you feel dirty.

I don’t have much to say about this person. I never met him and have no insight into where is this filth is coming from (not that I care). I do have a suggestion on what to do and it’s called shunning from the math community. Please ignore this person as much as possible! Never invite him to give talks at seminars or conferences. Refuse to referee his papers. If you are an editor, return his submissions without handling them. Don’t speak to him or shake his hand. If he is in the audience refuse to give a talk until he leaves. If you must cite his papers, do that without mentioning his name in the main body of the paper. He represents the ugly past that is best kept in the past…

How to fight the university bureaucracy and survive

The enormity of the university administration can instill fear. How can you possibly fight such a machine? Even if an injustice happened to you, you are just one person with no power, right? Well, I think you can. Whether you succeed in your fight is another matter. But at least you can try… In this post I will try to give you some advise on how to do this.

Note: Initially I wanted to make this blog post light and fun, but I couldn’t think of a single joke. Somehow, the subject doesn’t inspire… So read this only if it’s relevant to you. Wait for future blog posts otherwise…

Warning: Much of what I say is relevant to big state universities in the US. Some of what I say may also be relevant to other countries and university systems, I wouldn’t know.

Basics

Who am I to write about this? It is reasonable to ask if any of this is based on my personal experience of fighting university bureaucracies. The answer is yes, but I am not willing to make any public disclosures to protect privacy of all parties involved. Let me just say that over the past 20 years I had several relatively quiet and fairly minor fights with university bureaucracies some of which I won rather quickly by being right. Once, I bullied my way into victory despite being in the wrong (as I later learned), and once I won over a difficult (non-personal) political issue by being cunning and playing a really long game that took almost 3 years. I didn’t lose any, but I did refrain from fighting several times. By contrast, when I tried to fight the federal government a couple of times (on academic matters), I lost quickly and decisively. They are just too powerful….

Should you fight? Maybe. But probably not. Say, you complained to the administration about what you perceive to be an injustice to you or to someone else. Your complaint was denied. This is when you need to decide if you want to start a fight. If you do, you will spend a lot of effort and (on average) probably lose. The administrations are powerful and know what they are doing. You probably don’t, otherwise you won’t be reading this. This blog post might help you occasionally, but wouldn’t change the big picture.

Can you fight? Yes, you can. You can win by being right and convince bureaucrats to see it this way. You can win by being persistent when others give up. You can also win by being smart. Big systems have weaknesses you can exploit, see below. Use them.

Is there a downside to winning a fight? Absolutely. In the process you might lose some friends, raise some suspicions from colleagues, and invite retribution. On a positive side, big systems have very little institutional memory — your win and the resulting embarrassment to administration will be forgotten soon enough.

Is there an upside to losing a fight? Actually, yes. You might gain resect of some colleagues as someone willing to fight. In fact, people tend to want being friends/friendly with such people out of self-preservation. And if your cause is righteous, this might help your reputation in and beyond the department.

Why did I fight? Because I just couldn’t go on without a fight. The injustice, as I perceived it, was eating me alive and I had a hunch there is a nonzero chance I would win. There were some cases when I figured the chances are zero, and I don’t need the grief. There were cases when the issue was much too minor to waste my energy. I don’t regret those decision, but having grown up in this unsavory part of Moscow, I was conditioned to stand up for myself.

Is there a cost of not fighting? Yes, and it goes beyond the obvious. First, fighting bureaucracy is a skill, and every skill takes practice. I remember when tried to rent an apartment in Cambridge, MA — some real estate agents would immediately ask if I go to Harvard Law School. Apparently it’s a common practice for law students to sue their landlords, an “extra credit” homework exercise. Most of these lawsuits would quickly fail, but the legal proceeding were costly to the owners.

Second, there is a society cost. If you feel confident that your case is strong, you winning might set a precedent which could benefit many others. I wrote on this blog once how I dropped (or never really started) a fight against the NSF, even though they clearly denied me the NSF Graduate Fellowship in a discriminatory manner, or at least that’s what I continue to believe. Not fighting was the right thing to do for me personally (I would have lost, 100%), but my case was strong and the fight itself might have raised some awareness to the issue. It took the NSF almost 25 years to figure out that it’s time to drop the GREs discriminatory requirement.

Axioms

1. If it’s not in writing it never happened.
2. Everyone has a boss.
3. Bureaucrats care about themselves first and foremost. Then about people in their research area, department and university, in that order. Then undergraduates. Then graduate students. You are the last person they care about.

How to proceed

Know your adversary. Remember — you are not fighting a mafia, a corrupt regime or the whole society. Don’t get angry, fearful or paranoid. Your adversary is a group of good people who are doing their jobs as well as they can. They are not infallible, but probably pretty smart and very capable when it comes to bureaucracy, so from game theory point of view you may as well assume they are perfect. When they are not, you will notice that — that’s the weakness you can exploit, but don’t expect that to happen.

Know your rights. This might seem obvious, but you would be surprised to know how many academics are not aware they have rights in a university system. In fact, it’s a feature of every large bureaucracy — it produces a lot of well meaning rules. For example, Wikipedia is a large project which survived for 20 years, so unsurprisingly it has a large set of policies enforced by an army of admins. The same is probably true about your university and your department. Search on the web for the faculty handbook, university and department bylaws, etc. If you can’t find the anywhere, email the assistant to the Department Chair and ask for one.

Go through the motions. Say, you think you were slighted. For example, your salary was not increased (enough), you didn’t get a promotion, you got too many committee duties assigned, your sabbatical was not approved, etc. Whatever it is, you are upset, I get it. Your first step is not to complain but go through the motions, and email inquiries. Email the head of the department, chair of the executive committee, your faculty dean, etc., whoever is the decision maker. Calmly ask to explain this decision. Sometimes, this was an oversight and it’s corrected with a quick apology and “thanks for bringing this up”. You win, case closed. Also, sometimes you either get a convincing explanation with which you might agree — say, the university is on salary freeze so nobody got a salary increase, see some link. Again, case closed.

But in other cases you either receive an argument with which you disagree (say, “the decision was made based on your performance in the previous year”), a non-answer (say, “I am on sabbatical” or “I will not be discussing personal matters by email”), or no answer at all. These are the cases that you need to know how to handle and all such cases are a little different. I will try to cover as much territory as possible, but surely will miss some cases.

Ask for advice. This is especially important if you are a junior mathematician and feel a little overwhelmed. Find a former department chair, perhaps professor emeritus, and have an quiet chat. Old-timers know the history of the department, who are the university administrators, what are the rules, what happened to previous complaints, what would fly and what wouldn’t, etc. They might also suggest who else you should talk to that would be knowledgeable and help dealing with an issue. With friends like these, you are in a good shape.

Scenarios

Come by for a chat. This is a standard move by a capable bureaucrat. They invite you for a quick discussion, maybe sincerely apologize for “what happened” or “if you are upset” and promise something which they may or may not intend to keep. You are supposed to leave grateful that “you are heard” and nothing is really lost from admin’s point of view. You lost.

There is only one way to counter this move. Agree to a meeting — play nice and you might learn something. Don’t record in secret — it’s against the law in most states. Don’t ask if you can record the conversation — even if the bureaucrat agrees you will hear nothing but platitudes then (like “we in our university strive to make sure everyone is happy and successful, and it is my personal goal to ensure everyone is treated fairly and with respect”). This defeats the purpose of the meeting moving you back to square one.

At the meeting do not agree with anything, never say yes or no to anything. Not even to the routine “No hard feelings?” Just nod, take careful notes, say “thank you so much for taking time to have this meeting” and “This information is very useful, I will need to think it over”. Do not sign anything. If offered a document to sign, take it with you. If implicitly threatened, as in “Right now I can offer you this for you, but once you leave this office I can’t promise… ” (this is rare but does happen occasionally), ignore the threat. Just keep repeating “Thank you so much for informing me of my options, I will need to think it over.” Go home, think it over and talk to somebody.

Get it all in writing. Within a few hours after the meeting, email to the bureaucrat an email with your notes. Start this way: “Dear X, this is to follow up on the meeting we had on [date] regarding the [issue]. I am writing this to ensure there is no misunderstanding on my part. At the meeting you [offered/suggested/claimed/threatened] …. Please let me know if this is correct and what are the details of …”

A capable bureaucrat will recognize the move and will never go on record with anything unbecoming. They will accept the out you offered and claim that you indeed misunderstood. Don’t argue with that — you have them where you want it. In lieu of the misunderstanding they will need to give a real answer to your grievance (otherwise what was the point of the meeting?) Sometimes a bureaucrat will still resort to platitudes, but now that they are in writing, that trick is harder to pull off, and it leads us to a completely different scenario (see below).

Accept the win. You might receive something like this: “We sincerely apologize for [mistake]. While nothing can be done about [past decision], we intend to [compensate or rectify] by doing…” If this is a clear unambiguous promise in writing, you might want to accept it. If not, follow up about details. Do not pursue this any further and don’t make it public. You got what you wanted, it’s over.

Accept the defeat. You might learn that administration acted by the book, exactly the way the rules/bylaws prescribe, and you were not intentionally discriminated in any way. Remain calm. Thank the bureaucrat for the “clarification”. It’s over.

Power of CC. If you receive a non-answer full of platitudes or no email reply at all (give it exactly one week), then follow up. Write politely “I am afraid I did not receive an answer to [my questions] in my email from [date]. I would really appreciate your response to [all issues I raised]. P.S. I am CC’ing this email to [your boss, boss of your boss, your assistant, your peers, other fellow bureaucrats, etc.] to let them know of [my grievance] and in case they can be helpful with this situation.” They will not “be helpful”, of course, but that’s not the point. The CC move itself has an immense power driven by bureaucrats’ self-preservation. Most likely you will get a reply within hours. Just don’t abuse the CC move — use it when you have no other moves to play, as otherwise it loses its power.

Don’t accept a draw. Sometimes a capable bureaucrat might reply to the whole list on CC and write “We are very sorry [your grievance] happened. This is extremely atypical and related to [your unusual circumstances]. While this is normally not appropriate, we are happy to make an exception in your case and [compensate you].” Translation: “it’s your own fault, you brought it on yourself, we admit no wrongdoing, but we are being very nice and will make you happy even though we really don’t have to do anything, not at all.” While other bureaucrats will recognize the move and that there is an implicit admission of fault, they will stay quiet — it’s not their fight.

Now, there is only one way to counter this, as far as I know. If you don’t follow up it’s an implicit admission of “own fault” which you don’t want as the same issue might arise again in the future. If you start explaining that it’s really bureaucrat’s fault you seem vindictive (as in “you already got what you wanted, why do you keep pushing this?”), and other bureaucrats will close ranks leaving you worse off. The only way out is to pretend to be just as illogical as the bureaucrat pretends to be. Reply to the whole CC list something like “Thank you so much for your apology and understanding of my [issue]. I am very grateful this is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. I gratefully accept your sincere apology and your assurances this will not happen again to me nor anyone else at the department.”

A capable bureaucrat will recognize they are fighting fire with fire. In your email you sound naïve and sincere — how do you fight that? What are they going to do — reply “actually, I didn’t issue any apology as this was not my fault”? Now that seem overly defensive. And they would have to reply to the whole CC list again, which is not what they want. They are aware that everyone else knows they screwed up, so reminding everyone with a new email is not in their interest. And there is a decent chance you might reply to the whole CC list again with all that sugarcoated unpleasantness. Most likely, you won’t hear from them again, or just a personal (non-CC’d) email which you can ignore regardless of the content.

Shifting blame or responsibility. That’s another trick bureaucrats employ very successfully. You might get a reply from a bureaucrat X to the effect saying “don’t ask me, these are rules made by [people upstairs]” or “As far as I know, person Y is responsible for this all”. This is great news for you — a tacit validation of your cause and an example of a bureaucrat putting their own well-being ahead of the institution. Remember, your fight is not with X, but with the administration. Immediately forward both your grievance and the reply to Y, or to X’s boss if no names were offered, and definitely CC X “to keep your in the loop of further developments on this issue”. That immediately pushes bureaucracy into overdrive as it starts playing musical chairs in the game “whose fault is that and what can be done”.

Like with musical chairs, you might have to repeat the procedure a few times, but chances are someone will eventually accept responsibility just to stop this embarrassment from going circles. By then, there will be so many people on the CC chain, your issue will be addressed appropriately.

Help them help you. Sometimes a complaint puts the bureaucrat into a stalemate. They want to admit that injustice happened to you, but numerous university rules forbid them from acting to redress the situation. In order to violate these rules, they would have to take the case upstairs, which brings its own complications to everyone involved. Essentially you need to throw them a lifeline by suggesting some creative solution to the problem.

Say, you can write “while I realize the deadline for approval of my half-year sabbatical has passed, perhaps the department can buyout one course from my Fall schedule and postpone teaching the other until Spring.” This moves the discussion from the “apology” subject to “what can be done”, a much easier bureaucratic terrain. While the bureaucrat may not agree with your proposed solution, your willingness to deal without an apology will earn you some points and perhaps lead to a resolution favorable to all parties.

Now, don’t be constrained in creativity of when thinking up such a face saving resolution. It is a common misconception that university administrations are very slow and rigid. This is always correct “on average”, and holds for all large administrative systems where responsibility is distributed across many departments and individuals. In reality, when they want to, such large systems can turn on a dime by quickly utilizing its numerous resources (human, financial, legal, etc.) I’ve seen it in action, it’s jaw-dropping, and it takes just one high ranking person to take up the issue and make it a cause.

Making it public. You shouldn’t do that unless you already lost but keep holding a grudge (and have tenure to protect you). Even then, you probably shouldn’t do it unless you are really good at PR. Just about every time you make grievances public you lose some social points with people who will hold it against you, claim you brought it on yourself, etc. In the world of social media your voice will be drowned and your case will be either ignored or take life of its own, with facts distorted to fit a particular narrative. The administration will close ranks and refuse to comment. You might be worse off than when you started.

The only example I can give is my own combative blog post which remains by far my most widely read post. Everyone just loves watching a train wreck… Many people asked why I wrote it, since it made me a persona non grata in the whole area of mathematics. I don’t have a good answer. In fact, that area may have lost some social capital as a result of my blog post, but haven’t changed at all. Some people apologized, that’s all. There is really nothing I can do and they know it. The truth is — my upbringing was acting up again, and I just couldn’t let it go without saying “Don’t F*** with Igor Pak”.

But you can very indirectly threaten to make it public. Don’t do it unless you are at an endgame dealing with a high ranking administrator and things are not looking good for you. Low level university bureaucrats are not really afraid for their jobs. For example, head of the department might not even want to occupy the position, and is fully protected by tenure anyway. But deans, provosts, etc. are often fully vested into their positions which come with substantial salary hike. If you have a sympathetic case, they wouldn’t want to be featured in a college newspaper as denying you some benefits, regardless of the merit. They wouldn’t be bullied into submission either, so some finesse is needed.

In this case I recommend you find an email of some student editor of a local university newspaper. In your reply to the high ranking administrator write something like “Yes, I understand the university position in regard to this issue. However, perhaps [creative solution]”. Then quietly insert the editor’s email into CC. In the reply, the administrator will delete the email from CC “for privacy reasons”, but will google to find out who is being CC’ed. Unable to gauge the extend of newspaper’s interest in the story, the administrator might chose to hedge and help you by throwing money at you or mollifying you in some creative way you proposed. Win–win.

Final word

I am confident there will be people on all sides who disagree collectively with just about every sentence I wrote. Remember — this blog post is a not a recommendation to do anything. It’s just my personal point of view on these delicate matters which tend to go undiscussed, leaving many postdocs and junior faculty facing alone their grievances. If you know a good guide on how to deal with these issues (beyond Rota’s advice), please post a link in the comments. Good luck everyone! Hope you will never have to deal with any of that!

The Unity of Combinatorics

I just finished my very first book review for the Notices of the AMS. The authors are Ezra Brown and Richard Guy, and the book title is the same as the blog post. I had mixed feelings when I accepted the assignment to write this. I knew this would take a lot of work (I was wrong — it took a huge amount of work). But the reason I accepted is because I strongly suspected that there is no “unity of combinatorics”, so I wanted to be proved wrong. Here is how the book begins:

One reason why Combinatorics has been slow to become accepted as part of mainstream Mathematics is the common belief that it consists of a bag of isolated tricks, a number of areas: [very long list – IP] with little or no connection between them. We shall see that they have numerous threads weaving them together into a beautifully patterned tapestry.

Having read the book, I continue to maintain that there is no unity. The book review became a balancing act — how do you write a somewhat positive review if you don’t believe into the mission of the book? Here is the first paragraph of the portion of the review where I touch upon themes very familiar to readers of this blog:

As I see it, the whole idea of combinatorics as a “slow to become accepted” field feels like a throwback to the long forgotten era. This attitude was unfair but reasonably common back in 1970, outright insulting and relatively uncommon in 1995, and was utterly preposterous in 2020.

After a lengthy explanation I conclude:

To finish this line of thought, it gives me no pleasure to conclude that the case for the unity of combinatorics is too weak to be taken seriously. Perhaps, the unity of mathematics as a whole is an easier claim to establish, as evident from [Stanley’s] quotes. On the other hand, this lack of unity is not necessarily a bad thing, as we would be amiss without the rich diversity of cultures, languages, open problems, tools and applications of different areas.

Enjoy the full review! And please comment on the post with your own views on this alleged “unity”.

P.S. A large part of the book is freely downloadable. I made this website for the curious reader.

Remark (ADDED April 17, 2021)
Ezra “Bud” Brown gave a talk on the book illustrating many of the connections I discuss in the review. This was at a memorial conference celebrating Richard Guy’s legacy. I was not aware of the video until now. Watch the whole talk.

What math stories to tell and not to tell?

Storytelling can be surprisingly powerful. When a story is skillfully told, you get an almost magical feeling of being a part of it, making you care deeply about protagonists. Even if under ordinary circumstances you have zero empathy for the Civil War era outlaws or emperor penguins of Antarctica, you suddenly may find yourself engrossed with their fortune. This is a difficult skill to master, but the effects are visible even when used in earnest by the beginners.

Recently I started thinking about the kind of stories mathematicians should be telling. This was triggered by Angela Gibney‘s kind invitation to contribute an article on math writing to the Early Career Collection in the Notices of the AMS. So I looked at a few older articles and found them just wonderful. I am not the target audience for some of them, but I just kept reading them all one after another until I exhausted the whole collection.

My general advice — read the collection! Read a few pieces by some famous people or some people you know. If you like them, keep on reading. As I wrote in this blog post, you rarely get an insight into mathematician’s thinking unless they happen to write an autobiography or gave an interview. While this is more of a “how to” genre, most pieces are written in the first person narrative and do tell some interesting stories or have some curious points of view.

It is possible I am the last person to find out about the collection. I am not a member of the AMS, I don’t read the Notices, and it’s been a long time since anyone considered me “early career”. I found a few articles a little self-centered (but who am I to judge), and I would quibble with some advice (see below). But even those articles I found compelling and thought-provoking.

Having read the collection, I decided to write about mathematical storytelling. This is not something that comes naturally to most people in the field. Math stories (as opposed to stories about mathematicians) tend to be rather dry and unexciting, especially in the early years of studying. I will blog my own article some other time, but for now let me address the question in the title.

Stories to tell

With a few notable exceptions, just about all stories are worth telling. Whether in your autobiography or in your personal blog, as long as they are interesting to somebody — it’s all good. Given the lack of good stories, or any math stories really, it’s a good bet somebody will find your stories interesting. Let me expound on that.

Basically, anything personal works. To give examples from the collection, see e.g. stories by Mark Andrea de Cataldo, Alicia Prieto-Langarica, Terry Tao and John Urschel. Most autobiographies are written in this style, but a short blog post is also great. Overcoming an embarrassment caused by such public disclosure can be difficult, which makes it even more valuable to the readers.

Anything historical works, from full length monographs on history of math to short point of view pieces. Niche and off the beaten path stories are especially valuable. I personally like the classical History of Mathematical Notations by Florian Cajori, and Combinatorics: Ancient & Modern, a nice collection edited by Robin Wilson and John Watkins, with a several articles authored by names you will recognize. Note that an oral history can be also very valuable, see the kind of stories discussed by László Lovász and Endre Szemerédi mentioned in this blog post and Dynkin’s interviews I discussed here.

Anything juicy works. I mean, if you have a story of some famous mathematician doing something unusual (good or bad, or just plain weird), that attracts attention. This was the style of Steven Krantz’s two Math Apocryphia books, with many revealing and embarrassing anecdotes giving a sense of the bygone era.

Anything inspirational works. A beautiful example of this style is Francis Su’s Farewell Address as MAA President and part of his moving follow up book (the book has other interesting material as well). From the collection, let me single out Finding Your Reward by Skip Garibaldi which also aims to inspire. Yet another example is Bill Thurston‘s must read MO answer “What’s a mathematician to do?“

Any off the beaten path math style is great. Think of “The Strong Law of Small Numbers” by Richard Guy, or many conjectures Terry Tao discusses in his blog. Think of “Missed opportunities” by Freeman Dyson, “Tilings of space by knotted tiles” by Colin Adams, or “One sentence proof… ” by Don Zagier (see also a short discussion here) — these are all remarkable and memorable pieces of writing that don’t conform to the usual peer review paradigm.

Finally, anything philosophical or metamathematical finds an audience. I am thinking of “Is it plausible?” by Barry Mazur, “Theorems for a Price” by Doron Zeilberger, “You and Your Research” by Richard Hamming, “Mathematics as Metaphor” by Yuri Manin, or even “Prime Numbers and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence” by Carl Pomerance. We are all in search of some kind of answers, I suppose, so reading others thinking aloud about these deep questions always helps.

Practice makes perfect

Before I move to the other side, here is a simple advice on how to write a good story. Write as much as possible! There is no way around this. Absolutely no substitute, really. I’ve given this advice plenty of times, and so have everyone else. Let me conclude by this quote by Don Knuth which is a bit similar to Robert Lazarsfeld‘s advice. It makes my point much better and with with more authority that I can ever provide:

Of equal importance to solving a problem is the communication of that solution to others. The best way to improve your writing skills is to practice, practice, practice.

Seize every opportunity to write mini-essays about the theoretical work you are doing. Compose a blog for your friends, or even for yourself. When you write programs, write literate programs.

One of the best strategies to follow while doing PhD research is to prepare weekly reports of exactly what you are doing. What questions did you pursue that week? What positive answers did you get? What negative answers did you get? What are the major stumbling blocks that seem to be present at the moment? What related work are you reading?

Donald Knuth – On Writing up Research (posted by Omer Reingold), Theory Dish, Feb 26, 2018

Don’t be a journalist

In this interesting article in the same collection, Jordan Ellenberg writes:

Why don’t journalists talk about math as it really is? Because they don’t know how it really is. We do. And if we want the public discourse about math to be richer, broader, and deeper, we need to tell our own stories.

He goes on to suggest that one should start writing a blog and then pitch some articles to real newspapers and news magazines. He gives his own bio as one example (among others) of pitching and publishing in mainstream publications such as Slate and the New York Times. Obviously, I agree with the first (blog) part (duh!), but I am rather negative on the second part. I know, I know, this sounds discouraging, but hear me out.

First, what Jordan is not telling you is how hard he had to work on his craft before getting to the point of being acceptable to the general audience. This started with him getting Summa Cum Laude A.B. degree from Harvard in both Math and English (if I recall correctly), and then publishing a well-received novel, all before starting his regular Slate column. Very few math people have this kind of background on which they can build popular appeal.

Second, this takes away jobs from real journalists. Like every highly competitive intellectual profession, journalism requires years of study and practice. It has its own principles and traditions, graduate schools, etc. Call it a chutzpah or a Dunning–Kruger effect, but just because you are excellent in harmonic analysis doesn’t mean you can do even a mediocre job as a writer. Again — some people can do both, but most cannot. If anything, I suspect a negative correlation between math and writing skills.

Here is another way to think about this. Most people do realize that they don’t need to email their pretty iPhone pictures of a Machu Picchu sunrise to be published by the National Geographic. Or that their cobbler family recipe maybe not exactly be what Gourmet Magazine is looking for. Why would you think that writing is much easier then?

Third, this cheapens our profession to some degree. You really don’t need a Ph.D. in algebraic number theory and two perfect scores at the IMO to write about Powerball or baseball. You need a M.S. in statistics and really good writing skills. There are plenty of media sites which do that now, such as 538. There is even the whole DDJ specialization with many practitioners and a handful of Pulitzer prizes. Using quantitative methods is now mainstream, so what exactly are you bringing to the table?

Fourth, it helps to be honest. Jordan writes: “Editors like an angle. If there’s a math angle to a story in the news, pitch it! As someone with a degree in math, you have something to offer that most writers don’t.” This is true in the rare instances when, say, a Fields medal in your area is awarded, or something like that. But if it’s in an area far away from yours, then, uhm, you got nothing over many thousands of other people.

Now, please don’t take this as “don’t comment on current affairs” advice. No, no — please do! Comment away on your blog or on your podcast. Just don’t take jobs away from journalists. Help them instead! Write them emails, correct their mistakes. Let them interview you as an “expert”, whatever. Part of the reason the math related articles are so poor is because of mathematicians’ apathy and frequent disdain to the media, not because we don’t write newspaper articles — it’s really not our job.

Let me conclude with an anecdote about me reaching out to a newspaper. Once upon a time, long ago, flights used to distribute real newspapers to the passengers. I was sitting in the back and got a Wall Street Journal which I read out of boredom during takeoff. There was an article discussing the EU expansion and the fact that by some EU rules, the headquarters need a translator from every language to every other language. The article predicted dark days ahead, since it’s basically impossible to find people who can translate some smaller languages, such as from Maltese to Lithuanian. The article provided a helpful graph showing the number of translators needed as a function of the number of countries and claimed the exponential growth.

I was not amused, cut out the article, and emailed the author upon arrival, saying that with all my authority as an assistant professor at MIT, I promise that n(n-1) grows polynomially, not exponentially. I got back a surprisingly apologetic reply. The author confessed he was a math major in college, but was using the word without thinking. I don’t know if WSJ ever published a correction, but I bet the author will not be using this word so casually anymore, and if he ever advanced to the editorial position will propagate this knowledge to others. So there — that’s my personal contribution to improving public discourse…

Don’t be an apologist

In another beautifully written article in the Early Career collection, Izzet Coskun gives “advice on how to communicate mathematics quickly in informal settings”. He writes:

Whether before a promotion committee, at a party where one might meet future politicians or future parents of future colleagues, in the elevator on the way up to tea, or in the dean’s office at a job interview, we often have the opportunity to explain our work to a general audience. The time we have is usually short [..] Our audience will not be familiar with our terminology. Communicating mathematics in such settings is challenging.

He then gives a lot of very useful practical advice on how to prepare to such “math under a minute” conversation, how to be engaging, accessible, etc. It’s an all around good advice. However, I disagree. Here is my simple advice: Don’t Do It! If it’s a dean and this is a job interview, feel free to use any math jargon you want — it’s not your fault your field is technical, and the dean of sciences is used to it anyway. Otherwise, just say NO.

It’s true that sometimes your audience is friendly and is sincere in their interest in your work. In that case no matter what you say will disappoint them. There is a really good chance they can’t understand a word of what you say. They just think they can, and you are about to disillusion them.

But more often than not, the audience is actually not friendly, as was the case of a party Izzet described in his article. Many people harbor either a low regard or an outright resentment towards math stemming from their school years or some kind of “life experience”. These folks simply want to reinforce their views, and no matter what you say that will be taken as “you see, math is both hard, boring and useless”.

One should not confuse the unfriendlies with stupid or uneducated people. On the contrary, a lot of educated people think this way. A prime example is Amy Wax with her inimitable quote:

If we got rid of ninety percent of the math Ph.D. programs, would we really be worse off in any material respect?  I think that’s a serious question.

I discussed this quote at length in this blog post. There, I tried to answer her question. But after a few back-and-force emails (which I didn’t make public), it became clear that she is completely uninterested in the actual learning of what math is and what it does. She just wants to have her own answer validated by some area practitioners. Oh, well…

So here is the real reason why I think answering such people is pointless. No matter what you say, you come across as an apologist for the field. If people really want to understand what math is for, there are plenty of sources. In fact, have several bookshelves with extremely well written book-length answers. But it’s not your job to educate them! Worse, it is completely unreasonable to expect you to answer in “under one minute”.

Think about reactions of people when they meet other professionals. Someone says “I develop new DNA based cancer treatments” or “I work on improving VLSI architecture”, or “I device new option pricing strategies”. Is there a follow up request to explain it in “under one minute”? Not really. Let me give you a multiple choice. Is that because people think that:

a) these professions are boring compared to math and they would rather hear about the latter?

b) they know exactly what these professionals do, but math is so darn mysterious?

c) they know these professions are technical and hard to understand, but even children can understand math, so how hard can that be?

d) these professions are clearly useful, but what do math people do — solve quadratic equations all day?

If you answered a) or b) you have more faith in humanity than I do. If you answered c) you never spoke to anyone about math at a party. So d) is the only acceptable answer, even if it’s an exaggeration. Some people (mostly under 7) think that I “add numbers all day”, some people (mostly in social sciences) think that I “take derivatives all day”, etc., you get the point. My advice — don’t correct them. This makes them unhappy. Doesn’t matter if they are 7 or 77 — when you correct them the unhappiness is real and visible…

So here is a summary of how I deal with such questions. If people ask what I do, I answer “I do math research and I teach“. If they ask what kind of research I say “advanced math“. If they ask for details I tell them “it’s complicated“. If they ask why, I tell them “because it takes many years of study to even understand the math lingo, so if I tell you what I do this sounds like I am speaking a foreign language“.

If they ask what are the applications of my research (and they always do), I tell them “teaching graduate classes“. If they ask for “practical” applications, whatever that means, I tell them “this puts money into my Wells Fargo account“. At this point they move on exhausted by the questions. On the one hand I didn’t lie except in the last answer. On the other — nobody cares if I even have a WF account (I don’t, but it’s none of their business either).

One can ask — why do I care so much? What’s so special about my work that I am so apprehensive? In truth, nothing really. There are other aspects of my identity I also find difficult discussing in public. The most relevant is “What is Combinatorics?” which for some reason is asked over and over as if there is a good answer (see this blog post for my own answer and this Wikipedia article I wrote). When I hear people explaining what it is, half the time it sounds like they are apologizing for something they didn’t do…

There are other questions relevant to my complex identity that I am completely uninterested in discussing. Like “What do you think of the Russian President?” or “Who is a Jew?“, or “Are you a Zionist?” It’s not that my answers are somehow novel, interesting or controversial (they are not). It’s more like I am afraid to hear responses from the people who asked me these questions. More often than not I find their answers unfortunate or plain offensive, and I would rather not know that.

Let me conclude on a positive note, by telling a party story of my own. Once, during hors d’oeuvres (remember those?), one lady, a well known LA lawyer, walked to me and said: “I hear you are a math professor at UCLA. This is so fascinating! Can you tell me what you do? Just WOW me!” I politely declined along the lines above. She insisted: “There has to be something that I can understand!” I relented: “Ok, there is one theorem I can tell you. In fact, this result landed me a tenure.” She was all ears.

I continued: “Do you know what’s a square-root-of-two?” She nodded. “Well, I proved that this number can never be a ratio of two integers, for example it’s not equal to 17/12 or anything like that.” “Oh, shut-the-F-up!” she exclaimed. “Are you serious? You can prove that?” — she was clearly suspicious. “Yes, I can“, I confirmed vigorously, “in fact, two Russian newspapers even printed headlines about that back a few years ago. We love math over there, you know.”

“But of course!“, she said, “American media never writes about math. It’s such a shame! That’s why I never heard of your work. My son is much too young for this, but I must tell my nieces — they love science!” I nodded approvingly. She drifted away very happy, holding a small plate of meat stuffed potato croquettes, enriched with this newly acquired knowledge. I do hope her nieces liked that theorem — it is cool indeed. And the proof is so super neat…

What if they are all wrong?

Conjectures are a staple of mathematics. They are everywhere, permeating every area, subarea and subsubarea. They are diverse enough to avoid a single general adjective. They come in al shapes and sizes. Some of them are famous, classical, general, important, inspirational, far-reaching, audacious, exiting or popular, while others are speculative, narrow, technical, imprecise, far-fetched, misleading or recreational. That’s a lot of beliefs about unproven claims, yet we persist in dispensing them, inadvertently revealing our experience, intuition and biases.

The conjectures also vary in attitude. Like a finish line ribbon they all appear equally vulnerable to an outsider, but in fact differ widely from race to race. Some are eminently reachable, the only question being who will get there first (think 100 meter dash). Others are barely on the horizon, requiring both great effort, variety of tools, and an extended time commitment (think ironman triathlon). The most celebrated third type are like those Sci-Fi space expeditions in requiring hundreds of years multigenerational commitments, often losing contact with civilization it left behind. And we can’t forget the romantic fourth type — like the North Star, no one actually wants to reach them, as they are largely used for navigation, to find a direction in unchartered waters.

Now, conjectures famously provide a foundation of the scientific method, but that’s not at all how we actually think of them in mathematics. I argued back in this pointed blog post that citations are the most crucial for the day to day math development, so one should take utmost care in making references. While this claim is largely uncontroversial and serves as a raison d’être for most GoogleScholar profiles, conjectures provide a convenient idealistic way out. Thus, it’s much more noble and virtuous to say “I dedicated my life to the study of the XYZ Conjecture” (even if they never publish anything), than “I am working hard writing so many papers to gain respect of my peers, get a promotion, and provide for my family“. Right. Obviously…

But given this apparent (true or perceived) importance of conjectures, are you sure you are using them right? What if some/many of these conjectures are actually wrong, what then? Should you be flying that starship if there is no there there? An idealist would argue something like “it’s a journey, not a destination“, but I strongly disagree. Getting closer to the truth is actually kind of important, both as a public policy and on an individual level. It is thus pretty important to get it right where we are going.

What are conjectures in mathematics?

That’s a stupid question, right? Conjectures are mathematical claims whose validity we are trying to ascertain. Is that all? Well, yes, if you don’t care if anyone will actually work on the conjecture. In other words, something about the conjecture needs to interesting and inspiring.

What makes a conjecture interesting?

This is a hard question to answer because it is as much psychological as it is mathematical. A typical answer would be “oh, because it’s old/famous/beautiful/etc.” Uhm, ok, but let’s try to be a little more formal.

One typically argues “oh, that’s because this conjecture would imply [a list of interesting claims and known results]”. Well, ok, but this is self-referential. We already know all those “known results”, so no need to prove them again. And these “claims” are simply other conjectures, so this is really an argument of the type “this conjecture would imply that conjecture”, so not universally convincing. One can argue: “look, this conjecture has so many interesting consequences”. But this is both subjective and unintuitive. Shouldn’t having so many interesting conjectural consequences suggest that perhaps the conjecture is too strong and likely false? And if the conjecture is likely to be false, shouldn’t this make it uninteresting?

Also, wouldn’t it be interesting if you disprove a conjecture everyone believes to be true? In some sense, wouldn’t it be even more interesting if until now everyone one was simply wrong?

None of this are new ideas, of course. For example, faced with the need to justify the “great” BC conjecture, or rather 123 pages of survey on the subject (which is quite interesting and doesn’t really need to be justified), the authors suddenly turned reflective. Mindful of self-referential approach which they quickly discard, they chose a different tactic:

We believe that the interest of a conjecture lies in the feeling of unity of mathematics that it entails. [M.P. Gomez Aparicio, P. Julg and A. Valette, “The Baum-Connes conjecture“, 2019]

Huh? Shouldn’t math be about absolute truths, not feelings? Also, in my previous blog post, I mentioned Noga Alon‘s quote that Mathematics is already “one unit“. If it is, why does it need a new “feeling of unity“? Or is that like one of those new age ideas which stop being true if you don’t reinforce them at every occasion?

If you are confused at this point, welcome to the club! There is no objective way to argue what makes certain conjectures interesting. It’s all in our imagination. Nikolay Konstantinov once told me that “mathematics is a boring subject because every statement is equivalent to saying that some set is empty.” He meant to be provocative rather than uninspiring. But the problem he is underlying is quite serious.

What makes us believe a conjecture is true?

We already established that in order to argue that a conjecture is interesting we need to argue it’s also true, or at least we want to believe it to be true to have all those consequences. Note, however, that we argue that a conjecture is true in exactly the same way we argue it’s interesting: by showing that it holds is some special cases, and that it would imply other conjectures which are believed to be true because they are also checked in various special cases. So in essence, this gives “true = interesting” in most cases. Right?

This is where it gets complicated. Say, you are working on the “abc conjecture” which may or may not be open. You claim that it has many consequences, which makes it both likely true and interesting. One of them is the negative solution to the Erdős–Ulam problem about existence of a dense set in the plane with rational pairwise distances. But a positive solution to the E-U problem implies the Harborth’s conjecture (aka the “integral Fáry problem“) that every graph can be drawn in the plane with rational edge lengths. So, counterintuitively, if you follow the logic above shouldn’t you be working on a positive solution to Erdős–Ulam since it would both imply one conjecture and give a counterexample to another? For the record, I wouldn’t do that, just making a polemical point.

I am really hoping you see where I am going. Since there is no objective way to tell if a conjecture is true or not, and what exactly is so interesting about it, shouldn’t we discard our biases and also work towards disproving the conjecture just as hard as trying to prove it?

What do people say?

It’s worth starting with a general (if slightly poetic) modern description:

In mathematics, [..] great conjectures [are] sharply formulated statements that are most likely true but for which no conclusive proof has yet been found. These conjectures have deep roots and wide ramifications. The search for their solution guides a large part of mathematics. Eternal fame awaits those who conquer them first. Remarkably, mathematics has elevated the formulation of a conjecture into high art. [..] A well-chosen but unproven statement can make its author world-famous, sometimes even more so than the person providing the ultimate proof. [Robbert Dijkgraaf, The Subtle Art of the Mathematical Conjecture, 2019]

Karl Popper thought that conjectures are foundational to science, even if somewhat idealized the efforts to disprove them:

[Great scientists] are men of bold ideas, but highly critical of their own ideas: they try to find whether their ideas are right by trying first to find whether they are not perhaps wrong. They work with bold conjectures and severe attempts at refuting their own conjectures. [Karl Popper, Heroic Science, 1974]

Here is how he reconciled somewhat the apparent contradiction:

On the pre-scientific level we hate the very idea that we may be mistaken. So we cling dogmatically to our conjectures, as long as possible. On the scientific level, we systematically search for our mistakes. [Karl Popper, quoted by Bryan Magee, 1971]

Paul Erdős was, of course, a champion of conjectures and open problems. He joked that the purpose of life is “proof and conjecture” and this theme is repeatedly echoed when people write about him. It is hard to overestimate his output, which included hundreds of talks titled “My favorite problems“. He wrote over 180 papers with collections of conjectures and open problems (nicely assembled by Zbl. Math.)

Peter Sarnak has a somewhat opposite point of view, as he believes one should be extremely cautious about stating a conjecture so people don’t waste time working on it. He said once, only half-jokingly:

Since we reward people for making a right conjecture, maybe we should punish those who make a wrong conjecture. Say, cut off their fingers. [Peter Sarnak, UCLA, c. 2012]

This is not an exact quote — I am paraphrasing from memory. Needless to say, I disagree. I don’t know how many fingers he wished Erdős should lose, since some of his conjectures were definitely disproved: one, two, three, four, five, and six. This is not me gloating, the opposite in fact. When you are stating hundreds of conjectures in the span of almost 50 years, having only a handful to be disproved is an amazing batting average. It would, however, make me happy if Sarnak’s conjecture is disproved someday.

Finally, there is a bit of a controversy whether conjectures are worth as much as theorems. This is aptly summarized in this quote about yet another champion of conjectures:

Louis J. Mordell [in his book review] questioned Hardy‘s assessment that Ramanujan was a man whose native talent was equal to that of Euler or Jacobi. Mordell [..] claims that one should judge a mathematician by what he has actually done, by which Mordell seems to mean, the theorems he has proved. Mordell’s assessment seems quite wrong to me. I think that a felicitous but unproved conjecture may be of much more consequence for mathematics than the proof of many a respectable theorem. [Atle Selberg, “Reflections Around the Ramanujan Centenary“, 1988]

So, what’s the problem?

Well, the way I see it, the efforts made towards proving vs. disproving conjectures is greatly out of balance. Despite all the high-minded Popper’s claims about “severe attempts at refuting their own conjectures“, I don’t think there is much truth to that in modern math sciences. This does not mean that disproofs of famous conjectures aren’t celebrated. Sometimes they are, see below. But it’s clear to me that the proofs are celebrated more frequently, and to a much greater degree. I have only anecdotal evidence to support my claim, but bear with me.

Take prizes. Famously, Clay Math Institute gives $1 million for a solution of any of these major open problems. But look closely at the rules. According to the item 5b, except for the P vs. NP problem and the Navier–Stokes Equation problem, it gives nothing ($0) for a disproof of these problems. Why, oh why?? Let’s look into CMI’s “primary objectives and purposes“:

To recognize extraordinary achievements and advances in mathematical research.

So it sounds like CMI does not think that disproving the Riemann Hypothesis needs to be rewarded because this wouldn’t “advance mathematical research”. Surely, you are joking? Whatever happened to “the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth“? Why does the CMI wants to put its thumb on the scale and support only one side? Do they not want to find out the solution whatever it is? Shouldn’t they be eager to dispense with the “wrong conjecture” so as to save numerous researches from “advances to nowhere“?

I am sure you can see that my blood is boiling, but let’s proceed to the P vs. NP problem. What if it’s independent of ZFC? Clearly, CMI wouldn’t pay for proving that. Why not? It’s not like this kind of thing never happened before (see obligatory link to CH). Some people believe that (or at least they did in 2012), and some people like Scott Aaronson take this seriously enough. Wouldn’t this be a great result worthy of an award as much as the proof that P=NP, or at least a nonconstructive proof that P=NP?

If your head is not spinning hard enough, here is another amusing quote:

Of course, it’s possible that P vs. NP is unprovable, but that that fact itself will forever elude proof: indeed, maybe the question of the independence of P vs. NP is itself independent of set theory, and so on ad infinitum! But one can at least say that, if P vs. NP (or for that matter, the Riemann hypothesis, Goldbach’s conjecture, etc.) were proven independent of ZF, it would be an unprecedented development. [Scott Aaronson, P vs. NP, 2016].

Speaking of Goldbach’s Conjecture, the most talked about and the most intuitively correct statement in Number Theory that I know. In a publicity stunt, for two years there was a $1 million prize by a publishing house for the proof of the conjecture. Why just for the proof? I never heard of anyone not believing the conjecture. If I was the insurance underwriter for the prize (I bet they had one), I would allow them to use “for the proof or disproof” for a mere extra $100 in premium. For another $50 I would let them use “or independent of ZF” — it’s a free money, so why not? It’s such a pernicious idea of rewarding only one kind of research outcome!

Curiously, even for Goldbach’s Conjecture, there is a mild divergence of POVs on what the future holds. For example, Popper writes (twice in the same book!) that:

[On whether Goldbach’s Conjecture is ‘demonstrable’] We don’t know: perhaps we may never know, and perhaps we can never know. [Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963]

Ugh. Perhaps. I suppose anything can happen… For example, our civilizations can “perhaps” die out in the next 200 years. But is that likely? Shouldn’t the gloomy past be a warning, not a prediction of the future? The only thing more outrageously pessimistic is this theological gem of a quote:

Not even God knows the number of permutations of 1000 avoiding the 1324 pattern. [Doron Zeilberger, quoted here, 2005]

Thanks, Doron! What a way to encourage everyone! Since we know from numerical estimates that this number is ≈ 3.7 × 10¹⁰¹⁷ (see this paper and this follow up), Zeilberger is suggesting that large pattern avoidance numbers are impossibly hard to compute precisely, already in the range of only about 1018 digits. I really hope he is proved wrong in his lifetime.

But I digress. What I mean to emphasize, is that there are many ways a problem can be resolved. Yet some outcomes are considered more valuable than others. Shouldn’t the research achievements be rewarded, not the desired outcome? Here is yet another colorful opinion on this:

Given a conjecture, the best thing is to prove it. The second best thing is to disprove it. The third best thing is to prove that it is not possible to disprove it, since it will tell you not to waste your time trying to disprove it. That’s what Gödel did for the Continuum Hypothesis. [Saharon Shelah, Rutgers Univ. Colloqium, 2001]

Why do I care?

For one thing, disproving conjectures is part of what I do. Sometimes people are a little shy to unambiguously state them as formal conjectures, so they phrase them as questions or open problems, but then clarify that they believe the answer is positive. This is a distinction without a difference, or at least I don’t see any (maybe they are afraid of Sarnak’s wrath?) Regardless, proving their beliefs wrong is still what I do.

For example, here is my old bog post on my disproof of the Noonan-Zeiberger Conjecture (joint with Scott Garrabrant). And in this recent paper (joint with Danny Nguyen), we disprove in one big swoosh both Barvinok’s Problem, Kannan’s Problem, and Woods Conjecture. Just this year I disproved three conjectures:

1. The Kirillov–Klyachko Conjecture (2004) that the reduced Kronecker coefficients satisfy the saturation property (this paper, joint with Greta Panova).
2. The Brandolini et al. Conjecture (2019) that concrete lattice polytopes can multitile the space (this paper, joint with Alexey Garber).
3. Kenyon’s Problem (c. 2005) that every integral curve in R³ is a boundary of a PL surface comprised of unit triangles (this paper, joint with Alexey Glazyrin).

On top of that, just two months ago in this paper (joint with Han Lyu), we showed that the remarkable independence heuristic by I. J. Good for the number of contingency tables, fails badly even for nearly all uniform marginals. This is not exactly disproof of a conjecture, but it’s close, since the heuristic was introduced back in 1950 and continues to work well in practice.

In addition, I am currently working on disproving two more old conjectures which will remain unnamed until the time we actually resolve them (which might never happen, of course). In summary, I am deeply vested in disproving conjectures. The reasons why are somewhat complicated (see some of them below). But whatever my reasons, I demand and naively fully expect that my disproofs be treated on par with proofs, regardless whether this expectation bears any relation to reality.

My favorite disproofs and counterexamples:

There are many. Here are just a few, some famous and some not-so-famous, in historical order:

1. Fermat‘s conjecture (letter to Pascal, 1640) on primality of Fermat numbers, disproved by Euler (1747)
2. Tait’s conjecture (1884) on hamiltonicity of graphs of simple 3-polytopes, disproved by W.T. Tutte (1946)
3. General Burnside Problem (1902) on finiteness of periodic groups, resolved negatively by E.S. Golod (1964)
4. Keller’s conjecture (1930) on tilings with unit hypercubes, disproved by Jeff Lagarias and Peter Shor (1992)
5. Borsuk’s Conjecture (1932) on partitions of convex sets into parts of smaller diameter, disproved by Jeff Kahn and Gil Kalai (1993)
6. Hirsch Conjecture (1957) on the diameter of graphs of convex polytopes, disproved by Paco Santos (2010)
7. Woods’s conjecture (1972) on the covering radius of certain lattices, disproved by Oded Regev, Uri Shapira and Barak Weiss (2017)
8. Connes embedding problem (1976), resolved negatively by Zhengfeng Ji, Anand Natarajan, Thomas Vidick, John Wright and Henry Yuen (2020)

In all these cases, the disproofs and counterexamples didn’t stop the research. On the contrary, they gave a push to further (sometimes numerous) developments in the area.

Why should you disprove conjectures?

There are three reasons, of different nature and importance.

First, disproving conjectures is opportunistic. As mentioned above, people seem to try proving much harder than they try disproving. This creates niches of opportunity for an open-minded mathematician.

Second, disproving conjectures is beautiful. Let me explain. Conjectures tend to be rigid, as in “objects of the type pqr satisfy property abc.” People like me believe in the idea of “universality“. Some might call it “completeness” or even “Murphy’s law“, but the general principle is always the same. Namely: it is not sufficient that one wishes that all pqr satisfy abc to actually believe in the implication; rather, there has to be a strong reason why abc should hold. Barring that, pqr can possibly be almost anything, so in particular non-abc. While some would argue that non-abc objects are “ugly” or at least “not as nice” as abc, the idea of universality means that your objects can be of every color of the rainbow — nice color, ugly color, startling color, quiet color, etc. That kind of palette has its own sense of beauty, but it’s an acquired taste I suppose.

Third, disproving conjectures is constructive. It depends on the nature of the conjecture, of course, but one is often faced with necessity to construct a counterexample. Think of this as an engineering problem of building some pqr which at the same time is not abc. Such construction, if at all possible, might be difficult, time consuming and computer assisted. But so what? What would you rather do: build a mile-high skyscraper (none exist yet) or prove that this is impossible? Curiously, in CS Theory both algorithms and (many) complexity results are constructive (you need gadgets). Even the GCT is partially constructive, although explaining that would take us awhile.

What should the institutions do?

If you are an institution which awards prizes, stop with the legal nonsense: “We award […] only for a publication of a proof in a top journal”. You need to set up a scientific committee anyway, since otherwise it’s hard to tell sometimes if someone deserves a prize. With mathematicians you can expect anything anyway. Some would post two arXiv preprints, give a few lectures and then stop answering emails. Others would publish only in a journal where they are Editor-in-Chief. It’s stranger than fiction, really.

What you should do is say in the official rules: “We have [this much money] and an independent scientific committee which will award any progress on [this problem] partially or in full as they see fit.” Then a disproof or an independence result will receive just as much as the proof (what’s done is done, what else are you going to do with the money?) This would also allow some flexibility for partial solutions. Say, somebody proves Goldbach’s Conjecture for integers > exp(exp(10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰)), way way beyond computational powers for the remaining integers to be checked. I would give this person at least 50% of the prize money, leaving the rest for future developments of possibly many people improving on the bound. However, under the old prize rules such person gets bupkes for their breakthrough.

What should the journals do?

In short, become more open to results of computational and experimental nature. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a summary of Zeilberger’s Opinions, viewed charitably. He is correct on this. This includes publishing results of the type “Based on computational evidence we believe in the following UVW conjecture” or “We develop a new algorithm which confirms the UVW conjecture for n<13″. These are still contributions to mathematics, and the journals should learn to recognize them as such.

To put in context of our theme, it is clear that a lot more effort has been placed on proofs than on finding counterexamples. However, in many areas of mathematics there are no small counterexamples, so a heavy computational effort is crucial for any hope of finding one. Such work is not be as glamorous as traditional papers. But really, when it comes to standards, if a journal is willing to publish the study of something like the “null graphs“, the ship has sailed for you…

Let me give you a concrete example where a computational effort is indispensable. The curious Lovász conjecture states that every finite connected vertex-transitive graph contains a Hamiltonian path. This conjecture got to be false. It hits every red flag — there is really no reason why pqr = “vertex transitive” should imply abc = “Hamiltonian”. The best lower bound for the length of the longest (self-avoiding) path is only about square root of the number of vertices. In fact, even the original wording by Lovász shows he didn’t believe the conjecture is true (also, I asked him and he confirmed).

Unfortunately, proving that some potential counterexample is not Hamiltonian is computationally difficult. I once had an idea of one (a nice cubic Cayley graph on “only” 3600 vertices), but Bill Cook quickly found a Hamiltonian cycle dashing my hopes (it was kind of him to look into this problem). Maybe someday, when the TSP solvers are fast enough on much larger graphs, it will be time to return to this problem and thoroughly test it on large Cayley graphs. But say, despite long odds, I succeed and find a counterexample. Would a top journal publish such a paper?

Editor’s dilemma

There are three real criteria for evaluation a solution of an open problem by the journal:

1. Is this an old, famous, or well-studied problem?
2. Are the tools interesting or innovative enough to be helpful in future studies?
3. Are the implications of the solution to other problems important enough?

Now let’s make a hypothetical experiment. Let’s say a paper is submitted to a top math journal which solves a famous open problem in Combinatorics. Further, let’s say somebody already proved it is equivalent to a major problem in TCS. This checks criteria 1 and 3. Until not long ago it would be rejected regardless, so let’s assume this is happening relatively recently.

Now imagine two parallel worlds, where in the first world the conjecture is proved on 2 pages using beautiful but elementary linear algebra, and in the second world the conjecture is disproved on a 2 page long summary of a detailed computational search. So in neither world we have much to satisfy criterion 2. Now, a quiz: in which world the paper will be published?

If you recognized that the first world is a story of Hao Huang‘s elegant proof of the induced subgraphs of hypercubes conjecture, which implies the sensitivity conjecture. The Annals published it, I am happy to learn, in a welcome break with the past. But unless we are talking about some 200 year old famous conjecture, I can’t imagine the Annals accepting a short computational paper in the second world. Indeed, it took a bit of a scandal to accept even the 400 year old Kepler’s conjecture which was proved in a remarkable computational work.

Now think about this. Is any of that fair? Shouldn’t we do better as a community on this issue?

What do other people do?

Over the years I asked a number of people about the uncertainty created by the conjectures and what do they do about it. The answers surprised me. Here I am paraphrasing them:

Some were dumbfounded: “What do you mean this conjecture could be false? It has to be true, otherwise nothing I am doing make much sense.”

Others were simplistic: “It’s an important conjecture. Famous people said it’s true. It’s my job to prove it.”

Third were defensive: “Do you really think this conjecture could be wrong? Why don’t you try to disprove it then? We’ll see who is right.”

Fourth were biblical: “I tend to work 6 days a week towards the proof and one day towards the disproof.”

Fifth were practical: “I work on the proof until I hit a wall. I use the idea of this obstacle to try constructing potential counterexamples. When I find an approach to discard such counterexamples, I try to generalize the approach to continue working on the proof. Continue until either side wins.”

If the last two seem sensible to you to, that’s because they are. However, I bet fourth are just grandstanding — no way they actually do that. The fifth sound great when this is possible, but that’s exceedingly rare, in my opinion. We live in a technical age when proving new results often requires great deal of effort and technology. You likely have tools and intuition to work in only one direction. Why would you want to waste time working in another?

What should you do?

First, remember to make conjectures. Every time you write a paper, tell a story of what you proved. Then tell a story of what you wanted to prove but couldn’t. State it in the form of a conjecture. Don’t be afraid to be wrong, or be right but oversharing your ideas. It’s a downside, sure. But the upside is that your conjecture might prove very useful to others, especially young researchers. In might advance the area, or help you find a collaborator to resolve it.

Second, learn to check your conjectures computationally in many small cases. It’s important to give supporting evidence so that others take your conjectures seriously.

Third, learn to make experiments, explore the area computationally. That’s how you make new conjectures.

Fourth, understand yourself. Your skill, your tools. Your abilities like problem solving, absorbing information from the literature, or making bridges to other fields. Faced with a conjecture, use this knowledge to understand whether at least in principle you might be able to prove or disprove a conjecture.

Fifth, actively look for collaborators. Those who have skills, tools, or abilities you are missing. More importantly, they might have a different POV on the validity of the conjecture and how one might want to attack it. Argue with them and learn from them.

Sixth, be brave and optimistic! Whether you decide to prove, disprove a conjecture, or simply state a new conjecture, go for it! Ignore the judgements by the likes of Sarnak and Zeilberger. Trust me — they don’t really mean it.

Take an interview!

We all agree that Math is a human endeavor, yet we know so preciously little about mathematicians as humans working in mathematics. Our papers tend to have preciously few quotable sentences outside of the dry mathematical context. In fact, most introductions are filled with passages of the form “X introduced the celebrated tool pqr, which over the next 20 years was refined by A, B and C, and most recently was used by D to prove Z’s conjecture“. It is such a weak tea to convey contributions of six people in one short sentence, yet we all do this nonetheless.

In my “How to write a clear math paper” article accompanying this blog post, I argue that at least the first paragraph or the first subsection of a long paper can be human and aimed at humans. That is the place where one has freedom to be eloquent, inspiring, congratulatory, prescient, revelatory and quotable. I still believe that, but now I have a new suggestion, see the title of this blog post.

The art of autobiographies

These days many great scientists remain active into very old age, and rarely want or have time to write an autobiography. Good for them, bad for us. Psychologically this is understandable — it feels a little epitaphish, so they would much rather have someone else do that. But then their real voice and honest thoughts on life and math are lost, and can never be recorded. There is blogging, of course, but that’s clearly not for everyone.

There are some notable exceptions to this, of course. When I was in High School, reading autobiographies of Richard Feynman, Stan Ulam and Norbert Wiener was a pure joy, a window into a new world. The autobiоgraphy by Sofya Kovalevskaya was short on mathematical stories, but was so well written I think I finished the whole thing in one sitting. G.H. Hardy’s “Apology” is written in different style, but clearly self-revealing; while I personally disagree with much of his general point, I can see why the book continues to be read and inspire passionate debates.

More recently, I read William Tutte, “Graph Theory As I Have Known It“, which is mostly mathematical, but with a lot of personal stories delivered in an authoritative voice. It’s a remarkable book, I can’t praise it enough. Another one of my favorites is Steven Krantz, “Mathematical Apocrypha” and its followup, which are written in the first person, in a pleasant light rumor mill style. Many stories in these near-autobiographies were a common knowledge decades ago (even if some were urban legends), but are often the only way for us to learn now how it was back then.

On the opposite end of the spectrum there is L.S. Pontryagin’s autobiography (in Russian), which is full of wild rumors, vile accusations, and banal antisemitism. The book is a giant self-own, yet I couldn’t stop myself from hate-reading the whole thing just so I could hear all these interesting old stories from horse’s mouth.

Lately, the autobiographies I’ve been reading are getting less and less personal, with little more than background blurbs about each paper. Here are those by George Lusztig and Richard Stanley. It’s an unusual genre, and I applaud the authors for taking time to write these. But these condensed CV-like auto-bios clearly leave a lot of room for stories and details.

Why an interview?

Because a skillful interviewer can help a mathematician reveal personal stories, mathematical and metamathematical beliefs, and even general views (including controversial ones). Basically, reveal the humanity of a person that otherwise remains guarded behind endless Definition-Lemma-Theorem constructions.

Another reason to interview a person is to honor her or his contributions to mathematics. In the aftermath of my previous blog post, I got a lot of contradictory push-back. Some would say “I am shocked, shocked, to find that there is corruption going on. I have submitted to many invited issues, served as a guest editor for others and saw none of that! So you must be wrong, wrong, wrong.” Obviously, I am combining several POVs, satirizing and paraphrasing for the effect.

Others would say “Yes, you are right, some journals are not great so my junior coauthors do suffer, the refereeing is not always rigorous, the invited authors are often not selected very broadly, but what can I do? The only way I can imagine to honor a person is by a math article in an invited issue of a peer review journal, so we must continue this practice” (same disclaimer as above). Yeah, ok the imaginary dude, that’s just self-serving with a pretense of being generous and self-sacrificing. (Yes, my straw man fighting skill are unparalleled).

In fact, there are many ways to honor a person. You can give a talk about that person’s contributions, write a survey or a biographical article, organize a celebratory conference, or if you don’t want to be bothered simply add a dedication in the beginning of the next article you publish. Or, better yet, interview the honoree. Obviously, do this some time soon, while this person is alive, and make sure to put the interview online for everyone to read or hear.

How to do an interview?

Oh, you know, via Zoom, for example. The technical aspects are really trivial these days. With permission, you can record the audio/video by pushing one button. The very same Zoom (or Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) have good speech-to-text programs which will typeset the whole interview for you, modulo some light editing (especially of math terminology). Again, with a couple of clicks, you can publish the video or the audio on YouTube, the text on your own website or any social media. Done. Really, it’s that easy!

Examples

I have many favorites, in fact. One superb video collection is done by the Simons Institute. I already blogged here about terrific interviews with László Lovász and Endre Szemerédi. The interviewer for both is Avi Wigderson, who is obviously extremely knowledgeable of the subject. He asked many pointed and interesting questions, yet leaving the interviewees plenty of space to develop and expand on their their answers. The videos are then well edited and broken into short watchable pieces.

Another interesting collection of video interviews is made by CIRM (in both English and French). See also general video collections, some of which have rather extensive and professionally made interviews with a number of notable mathematicians and scientists. Let me single out the Web of Stories, which include lengthy fascinating interviews with Michael Atiyah, Freeman Dyson, Don Knuth, Marvin Minsky, and many others.

I already wrote about how to watch a math video talk (some advice may be dated). Here it’s even easier. At the time of the pandemic, when you are Zoom fatigued — put these on your big screen TV and watch them as documentaries with as much or as little attention as you like. I bet you will find them more enlightening than the news, Netflix or other alternatives.

Authorized biography books are less frequent, obviously, but they do exist. One notable recent example is “Genius At Play: The Curious Mind of John Horton Conway” by Siobhan Roberts which is based on many direct conversations. Let me also single out perhaps lesser known “Creative Minds, Charmed Lives” by Yu Kiang Leong, which has a number of interesting interviews with excellent mathematicians, many of the them not on other lists. For example, on my “What is Combinatorics” page, I quote extensively from his interview with Béla Bollobás, but in fact the whole interview is worth reading.

Finally, there is a truly remarkable collection of audio interviews by Eugene Dynkin with leading mathematicians of his era, spanning from 1970s to 2010s (some in English, some in Russian). The collection was digitized using Flash which died about five years ago, rendering the collection unusable. When preparing this post I was going to use this example as a cautionary tale, but to my surprise someone made it possible to download them in .mp3. Enjoy! Listening to these conversations is just delightful.

Final thoughts

Remember, you don’t have to be a professional interviewer to do a good job. Consider two most recent interviews with Noga Alon and Richard Stanley by Toufik Mansour, both published at ECA. By employing a simple trick of asking the same well prepared questions, he allows the reader to compare and contrast the answers, and make their own judgement on which ones they like or agree with the most. Some answers are also quite revealing, e.g. Stanley saying he occasionally thinks about the RH (who knew?), or Alon’s strong belief that “mathematics should be considered as one unit” (i.e. without the area divisions). The problems they consider to be important are also rather telling.

Let me mention that in the digital era, even the amateur long forgotten interviews can later be found and proved useful. For example, I concluded my “History of Catalan numbers” with a quote from an obscure Richard Stanley’s interview to the MIT undergraduate newspaper. There, he was discussing the origins of his Catalan numbers exercise which is now a book. Richard later wrote to me in astonishment as he actually completely forgot he gave that interview.

So, happy watching, listening, and reading all the interviews! Hope you take some interviews yourself for all of us to enjoy!

P.S. (Added Dec 3, 2020) At my urging, Bruce Rothschild has typed up a brief “History of Combinatorics at UCLA“. I only added hyperlinks to it, to clarify the personalities Bruce is talking about (thus, all link mistakes are mine).

P.P.S. (Added Feb 6, 2021) At my request, the editors of ECA clarified their interview process (as of today, they have posted nine of them). Their interviews are conducted over email and are essentially replies to the nearly identical sets of questions. The responses are edited for clarity and undergo several rounds of approval by the interviewee. This practice is short of what one would traditionally describe as a journalistic interview (e.g., there are no uncomfortable questions), and is more akin to writing a puff piece. Still, we strongly support this initiative by the ECA as the first systematic effort to put combinatorialists on record. Hopefully, with passage of time others types of interviews will also emerge from various sources.

How Combinatorics became legitimate (according to László Lovász and Endre Szemerédi)

Simons Foundation has a series of fantastic interviews with leading mathematicians (ht Federico Ardila).  Let me single out the interviews with László Lovász and Endre Szemerédi.  Avi Wigderson asked both of them about the history of combinatorics and how it came into prominence.  Watch parts 8-9 in Lovász’s interview and 10-11 in Szemerédi’s interview to hear their fascinating answers.

P.S.  See also my old blog posts on what is combinatorics, how it became legitimate and how to watch math videos.