<p>Assuming you are a normal,straight A math student in college who for some reason never grew up in a problem solving culture,how do you prepare for a contest like the Putnam?Of course it is tough,but if one is willing to sign up for boot camp,what is the stuff he/she ought to do?</p>
<p>I imagine you would do lots and lots of practice problems, which you might find online or in some practice book.</p>
<p>As an aopser, I would highly recommend visiting artofproblemsolving.com. The answers are all there. Note that contest math is a lot harder than regular math. U might want to check out the college forums.</p>
<p>Edit: they also have texts, online classes (although these are mostly high school).'try the calc text</p>
<p>Even bigger, practice problems are always the best, unless you have absolutely no idea what the problem is about, that means u need to learn the theory behind it</p>
<p>I have a copy of “Putnam and Beyond”,and the problems are nothing likethe stuff in my Real Analysis or Abstract Algebra class.Its just…different</p>
<p>Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about the Putnam. If you’re bored and want to do math, then maybe do a few problems, and if your school has a class to prepare you for the Putnam, then take that. But otherwise, I think you should be at the point where you focus your efforts on learning more math, and maybe trying to do research.</p>
<p>Unfortunately,i am the only student who even knows or is interested in the Putnam lol.My college does not provide on campus research in math,which is why taking the Putnam looks like a genuine challenge</p>
<p>I agree with Shravas. Unless you are Ramanujan (sp?), you aren’t going to solve Putnam problems from scratch. You need a solid college mathematics background to even have a chance at solving them. Training for the Putnam without this is fruitless. You’re not going to do well on it by learning math tricks. </p>
<p>One guy I knew who got in the top 300 or so of the Putnam (very solid, considering the competition) was not amazing at the AMC, so he’s a good model on how mere mortals can do well on the Putnam. He got only about 100-120 range on the AMC, but he was intelligent and certainly didn’t have a problem at grasping advanced math in class. After majoring in math and studying hard in his classes, he did very respectfully on the Putnam.</p>
<p>The key to getting better at contest math is actually doing problems. That said, you’re quite behind all of the other students who have been doing problems since elementary/middle/high school. </p>
<p>You theoretically can do well on the Putnam, but it is highly unlikely. You’d have to go through the elementary problem solving books (ex AOPS Volume 1), and slowly transition into the more complex ones (ex Arthur Engel’s Problem Solving Strategies). Seeing as you haven’t really exposed yourself to problem solving, you might know a bit of the strategies already, but you most likely will need to go through EVERYTHING in these books in order to do well.</p>
<p>^^Isn’t the Putnam quite a bit different from AMC/USAMO? I don’t feel like AoPS is really enough. Also, a lot of the so-called “math tricks” are straight out of number theory, so it’s really better to take the course first to see how everything fits together as a whole rather than learning it piecemeal by doing random problems.</p>
<p>Yes, the Putnam is different from the USAMO. You have 9 hours for 6 problems for the USAMO (two 4.5 hour sessions with 3 problems each), while you have 6 hours for 12 problems for the Putnam (two 3 hour sessions with 6 problems each). However, those who tend to do well on the USAMO/IMO do well on the Putnam. There are several examples, including Evan O’Dorney, Alex Zhai, Xiaosheng Mu, Reid Barton, and countless others. I’m pretty sure this isn’t a coincidence…</p>
<p>Of course AOPS isn’t enough, which is why I recommended Engel’s book. Many of the strategies used to solve problems found in such proof-based competitions have a foundation in AOPS. </p>
<p>Number theory is a big topic yes, but don’t forget set theory, group theory, geometry, calculus, etc. Taking a course is a good idea, but learning based on the material in the course typically means that everyone else is learning the same material too. You probably wouldn’t want to limit yourself to a course (unless it’s a special course) when trying to do well on such a competition.</p>
<p>^^I know that the Putnam fellows all rocked USAMO. I just think that an entering freshman with relatively little advanced math experience wouldn’t benefit from doing contest math problems. And going back to the beginning and building upwards using AoPS seems like it would be a worse use of one’s time than simply studying for their classes in the mat curriculum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So I actually disagree with this. The OP has taken Analysis and Abstract Algebra and I would say that’s enough to theoretically be able to solve most, if not the problems, and I doubt more advanced courses would help that much. I do agree with your last post though,especially without any background in contest mathematics, it’s going to take a lot of effort to be able to do well on the Putnam just because contest math is so different. Your efforts are again probably better spent learning more math and doing research.</p>
<p>The Putnam is definitely still worthwhile to take, but just don’t actively prepare for it. If your college doesn’t provide any formal program to do research in math, then see if you can talk to a professor and do an independent study/reading project, or research with them informally. If you still have the chance then apply to an REU, though it’s too late for this summer. But I think you’re at the point where preparing for the Putnam is only going to be useful in doing well on the Putnam, and nothing else. I guess if that’s your goal though, then the AoPS books and Engel’s book will be useful and more than enough to get you started.</p>
<p>Here is my boot camp formula:cover all the books in the AoPS curriculum from intro to probability upto the calculus text(am going into the monastery this summer).Then clear AoPs vol 1&2,then go through all past AMCs(8 to 12),plus USAMO&IMO problems on Aops.After this,i would read Titu Andreescu’s “Math Olympiad challenges”.Finally start working on past putnams.I know its hard,but does the plan make sense,and how can i refine it?</p>
<p>I guess if that’s really what you want to do (though I strongly discourage it), don’t focus too much on introductory stuff. I think just doing AoPS volumes 1 and 2 is good enough, there’s no need to add on the other AoPS books and AMC’s. And even that is still a lot, so be aware of how much time you’re spending.</p>
<p>Also, the tricky thing about the Putnam is that it’s graded extremely harshly, even more than that USAMO and IMO. On the past Putnam, my score was literally half of what I thought it would be right after the test, and I would like to think I’m somewhat good at recognizing when a proof has flaws. I don’t have any advice on how to deal with this, but this is something to be aware of.</p>
<p>I truly appreciate your input.Let me hit the track</p>
<p>If you are a college undergrad math major, I would actually advise you to skip the AoPs volumes. They are really, really basic, especially for an undergrad, and you likely have seen a lot of this stuff in high school.</p>
<p>Since you are short on time, I actually recommend Engel’s problem Solving Strategies. It’s hard, but very very compact. It will save you time (it was designed for a 2 week IMO prep camp in Germany). When it comes to problem solving, quality is definitely better than quantity for sth like Putnam.</p>
<p>Okey.Does it have solutions to each of the problems posed like AOPS books?</p>
<p>It does, though they’re rather terse.</p>
<p>How good(or is legit) are these set of books?
[Recommended</a> Mathematics Literature](<a href=“http://olympiads.win.tue.nl/imo/books.html]Recommended”>Recommended Mathematics Literature)</p>