Some of you have probably noticed that I’m helping with organizing a new contest and are asking what exactly this is. So far, I haven’t said much about it because so much is up-in-the-air (and that’s still true).
However, with the first few acceptances and registrations coming out, I’m going to post an FAQ and few quick thoughts of my own. Just to be clear, everything here is my own personal commentary and views and not those of my employer or OMEGA generally.
What is OMEGA?
OMEGA (Organization for Math Engagement and Growth in America) is a new 510(c)(3) whose ambitious long-term goal is to build great, robust math programs for thousands of students all across the USA (whether competition-like or not).
However, that is a pipe dream, because OMEGA is also about four months old and has a whopping four staff, many of which are part-time (I’m officially only working 1/3-time). Maybe OMEGA will be a big deal one day, but it certainly isn’t right now. My way of working has always been following Linus Torvalds’ advice:
Nobody should start to undertake a large project. You start with a small trivial project, and you should never expect it to get large. … So start small, and think about the details. Don’t think about some big picture and fancy design. If it doesn’t solve some fairly immediate need, it’s almost certainly over-designed.
That brings us to the next FAQ:
What is AMM?
The American Masters in Mathematics is that smallest reasonable project we could start with. It will be the first event we run from May 22 to 25, 2026 in Denver this year.
The competition itself will be fairly standard. It’ll be a proof-based, 4.5-hour, 5-problem event with each problem worth 7 points. We officially have a syllabus if you are interested, but at least for 2026 there won’t be any huge shockers here for any of you that have done math olympiad content before. The easiest problems are intended to be similar to what you see on the middle of BAMO-12; the hardest ones will be medium-hard IMO level.
But in addition to the contest itself (4.5 hours), there will be quite a lot of time for some fun events. Officially, the branding is “competition and festival”. In the program, the competition lasts 4.5 hours but the festival is something like 15 to 20 hours.
What makes AMM different?
When I pitched the idea of AMM, the basic thesis was that we should run a legit in-person proof-based event, because those are pretty rare in the USA.
To me, I think what should make AMM attractive and fill some immediate need is some combination of the following:
- You write proofs and human reviewers will read what you wrote. It’s not yet another computational contest where you get graded based on just a number, so we can write better, more interesting problems.
- You’ll even get a chance to talk with the reviewers briefly. I don’t want to brand this as IMO coordination, because it’s definitely not that (in particular, we don’t want to be adversarial). There are so many things TBD about how this is going to look. However, the basic premise is we’d like everyone who comes to be able to spend a few minutes getting live feedback from a mathematician about at least one of their submitted solutions.
- It’s in-person. You’ll get to hang out with people, unlike USEMO. I think you’re missing out on a lot if your only interactions with like-minded peers is on Discord.
- I don’t know how to say this politely, but I think it’s ridiculous to tell a high school student “you can only write a proof once you get 13+ on the AIME”. Like, hello? Anyway, if you’re sad about not getting to take USAMO this year, come to Denver. Our problems will also be cool.
- I will make sure there is a puzzle hunt on Sunday. It might be a tiny mini-hunt with three puzzles and a metapuzzle (think Zelda hunt), or it might be a bit bigger, but there will be something.
Why is there a long and annoying application?
Mostly because we have no idea how we’re going to select people if we end up getting more applications than capacity (we all know AMC/AIME scores are almost worthless now). So we’re asking for a lot of information because we don’t even know what we’re looking for yet.
Please bear with us. It’s our first time too.
There’s higher math on the syllabus!?
That’s not a question, but yes, I did put it there. I understand this might be a bit controversial. But broadly speaking I want to push people to not be so confined with respect to whatever the unspoken “IMO syllabus” is. As I said in a forum post a few years back:
Certainly, there needs to be some informal boundary on exam content, so that the IMO does not degenerate into a trivia contest. However, on the other extreme, I should hope that the world’s best math students are not so inflexible that merely mentioning concavity makes them cower in fear. Change breaks the brittle.
I just think we should encourage people to learn more math. The choice of “basic algebra and analysis” is intentional because that’s the narrow bottleneck between high-school math and the modern undergraduate syllabus.
I know there’s such a thing as going too far. Affine schemes appearing in high-school problem statements is unreasonable, for example. But I don’t think some first-year algebra and analysis is going too far. So many more doors are open if you know a bit of abstract and linear algebra and real analysis. So I think the ROI is well-justified.
Are you planning to replace the MAA AMC?
I mean, that’s sure a tempting idea, but that’s not even on my radar right now. Again: start with a small trivial project, and never expect it to get large.
The AMM is just an event having its first year. I honestly already think the scope of AMM 2026 is too big and it’s stressing me out.
Where did the name come from?
During some meeting early on, I said something like “we can run our own version of the RMM, like the American Masters in Mathematics or whatever” and the name never changed after that.
How do I apply?
Go to the website and fill out the seven pages of Google Forms.
Power Overwhelming 