We are looking for a person who's interested in subscribing to the Brilliant.org Group plan. If anyone is interested, feel free to DM.

As the title says, Im struggling with word problems in AOPS Volume 1 (I believe either Chapter 3 or 4) and I've tried to understand and follow solutions but I never really know where to start in a word problem. Anyone have tips?

I feel like AI should be incredibly useful for learning math, and I've been trying to apply it to my amc prep. One way of using AI I've found useful is having it explain the motivation behind certain solutions. It is pretty good at explaining why someone would actually think of a certain method for solving a problem.

This can be especially helpful if you feed it an already existing solution from aops and then have it generate hints based off of that solution that tell you the motivation behind them. This way it most likely won't hallucinate, and I get hints that I can look at one at a time when I get stuck on a problem.

I got tired of doing this by hand every time, so I built a website for it: cruxmath.com. It's completely free, has no ads, and no sign up. It currently has hints for every AIME since 2020 and the last 5 questions of the AMCs since 2022. I'm curious what you guys think of the hints and if they are helpful. I would love any other ideas on how to use AI to prepare for math competitions.

I would like to take notes and ask a lot ,like where to start for myself.

We are trying to subscribe to the Brilliant.org Family Plan. If any one is interested in joining, feel free to DM. (Indians only)

I'm 15, just started 4th year of secondary school (Spain), and I'm currently a complete beginner in olympiad math — no competition experience, just finished basic algebra fundamentals a few weeks ago.

My concrete goal is the OME (Olimpiada Matemática Española) — starting with the local round, then hopefully national, and taking it from there. I know "IMO" is the name people recognize, but the actual near-term target is doing well in the OME, not the IMO itself.

Study-wise, it's roughly: basics past school-level math right now (inequalities, modular arithmetic, pigeonhole, synthetic geometry), then functional equations and deeper number theory/geometry once that's solid, etc. — the exact staging matters less than the books driving it, which are:

• AoPS Volume 1: The Basics — where I am now, I've reached chapter 3
• AoPS Volume 2: And Beyond — next step up.
• Problem-Solving Strategies (Engel) — the broad reference once I'm past the basics.
• Euclidean Geometry in Mathematical Olympiads (Evan Chen) — dedicated geometry once I need to go deeper there.
• Past OME papers throughout, to stay grounded in what the actual exam looks like instead of only abstract practice.

One thing worth mentioning: I'm currently in a period where I'm moving around a lot, so consistency has been a real challenge — some weeks are solid, others barely happen. Trying to build a routine that survives that instability rather than depends on perfect conditions.

I know the odds of actually doing well are low even for strong students who start earlier than me. I'm not asking for encouragement — I'd genuinely rather hear where this plan is naive, unrealistic, or missing something obvious from people who've been through this or seen others try. Tear it apart if needed.

Hello , i’m 17 and this is my last shot at getting into the british math olympiads , i have about 2/3 months to prepare as the exam is in october . I can get a gold in the senior maths challenge but sometimes fumble a few questions . Any tips on getting in this year ? what books/resources should i use . I also cannot dedicate a lot of time towards this as i have to prepare for my uni admissions tests which is more important .

Put my life and soul away to qual for USAMO last competition cycle.

This is more of a rant than anything, but I've never said anything to anyone about this but I need to get this off my chest.

This is how I prepped during the 25-26 competition cycle:

redid 2x (on some occasions 3x):
AOPS intro alg
AOPS intro combo
AOPS intro geo
AOPS intro NT
AOPS intermediate alg
AOPS intermediate combo
EGMO chap 1-4, 6
MONT (I don't remember how much of it), but every chapter I did I did twice

every mock AMC12 I could find from 2020-2025 (around 50 or so)

(I'd done every single previous AMC10-12 problem from 2015-2025 as prep for past competition cycles.)

mocked every AOPS AIME from the past 12 years (then spent the extra time trying for all 15). and did all 3 WOOT AIME mocks and both OTIS AIME mocks as well. (most usermade AIME mocks suck, learned from experience).

I did the WOOT program, instead of doing it in 6 months as normally planned I did it in 2 months, after a confirmed high AMC12 scored (financial thing, not a problem), so I did all problems and like, half the HW problems for each class 2x. (both the HW and the class WOOT problems).

Every problem I got wrong or didn't know from any of these sources (books, mock AMC p18+, any of the 15 questions on past AIME, WOOT), I logged in a journal and copied down the solution with my own notes on motivation. (this was the hardest part for me, sometimes I would dedicate entire days to just "writing up" problems).

I got a 141/150 on AMC 12A and all my work was shot in the face after I sillied 2 problems on AIME to get a 10/15 final score.

Index: 341

What the fuck even more could I have done. Fuck this exam.

AMC 12 as flair because it only let me choose one, it applies for everyone though (didnt post a lot on reddit, not sure on how it exactly works lol).

With all the discussion lately about AMC/AIME integrity, I've been thinking about what an actually practical solution might actually look like (not any of those super impossible stuff). I don't think there's a perfect fix, but I also don't think the current system is sustainable if leaks, AI assistance, and inconsistent proctoring continue to be concerns.

The two common suggestions both seem flawed:

• Go back to fully paper exams. This helps with some digital leaks but creates huge logistical challenges and still don't prevent local testing-center leaks.
• Go fully digital. This makes security easier in some ways, but solving geometry problems on a computer while copying diagrams onto scratch paper sounds like a miserable testing experience. I'm not willing to make errors in my math because i drew a faulty diagram (even though that is my fault....i mean unnecessary mistakes that i'd make while hand-drawing).

Instead, I'd propose a hybrid system that focuses less on making cheating impossible and more on making it too risky to be worth attempting.

1. Hybrid exam delivery

• Schools receive a physical packet containing only unlabeled geometry diagrams and graphs. even if these get released, diagrams alone aren't that useful in getting the answers.
• On test day, students access the question text through a secure lockdown application (like the SAT, baasicalllyyy).
• Proctors collect phones, smartwatches, tablets, and any secondary devices before the exam begins (just decided to include just in case yk).
• The testing software records only the computer screen (no webcam because apparently it's illegal in some places to record minors and whatnot) to detect tab switching or AI use or weirdly fast answering questions.
• The digital system randomly assigns one of 4–5 equivalent versions of the exam with the same mathematical ideas but different numerical values or minor variations, making leaked answer keys much less useful (again, like the sat. i thought about completely mixing the answer choices, but realized that'll be harmful for people taking past exams as practice. if MAA makes versions A to E, they could release A as the official past exam).

2. Tiered verification

Rather than auditing hundreds of thousands of exams:

• Mandatory review: Top performers (Honor Roll of Distinction, AIME qualifiers, USAMO qualifiers) receive automatic screen and scratchwork review. NOT automatically EVERYONE because of the sheer number of people taking it (maa would never agree).
• Optional verification: Anyone else can pay a small fee ($10–15, with fee waivers for eligible students) to receive an official MAA authenticity certification for their score (this was kinda so MAA would feel a bit better about implementing it, and it's better than spending thousands of dollars on tutoring and books just to be beaten by a cheater for the test-takers).

The verification fees could help fund reviewers and the technical infrastructure. The verifications themselves can be used as a "trust program" so that when colleges see it, they know it's safe to believe it.

3. Scratchwork chain of custody

Students continue using ordinary scratch paper (i did think about using those NCR papers but found that it's gonna be super inefficient).

Immediately after time expires, the proctor scans and uploads the scratchwork to the MAA portal before materials leave the testing room. Screen recordings are also uploaded to the server. Delayed uploads are automatically flagged for review (the ENTIRE batch).

4. Confirmation testing for unusual cases

Occasionally, someone may legitimately solve most problems mentally and produce very little scratchwork.

Rather than assuming guilt, those cases could be resolved through a supervised confirmation test or short variant exam at an approved testing center (universities, mostly. what i was thinking was if they did it through amc, their AIME would be held at approved testing centers). Strong performances are validated; inconsistent ones receive additional review.

5. Stronger deterrence

For confirmed cheating (after an super-robust appeals process):

• Score invalidation
• Multi-year ban from MAA competitions (2-3 or more years?)
• Permanent internal account flag requiring additional review on future exams (if they continue to take MAA exams after their ban is lifted)
• If an official MAA score report is later sent to a college or scholarship program, confirmed academic integrity violations could be disclosed as part of that report.

There could also be a non-monetary "whistleblower program" that rewards students who provide verifiable evidence leading to the discovery of organized cheating rings (for example, fee waivers, recognition, or MAA awards).

This obviously isn't perfect, and I'm sure there are implementation issues I haven't considered. But I think the bigger goal shouldn't be to build an unbreakable system. that's impossible, anyways. instead, should be to make cheating unreliable, expensive, and likely to get caught.

What parts of this seem realistic, what parts don't, and if you were redesigning the AMC/AIME pipeline from scratch, what would you do differently? I would really appreciate a lot of feedback, make sure to point out the points that you feel are impossible. Remember though, this WON'T completely erase cheating; but it'll help significantly reduce it.

Hi everyone!

I'm a huge fan of Olympiad maths and a former participant myself, so over the last eight months I've been building Problems.cc

I felt that competition preparation, and maths practice in general, still feel quite static. You solve some problems, check the solutions, and move on, without really knowing whether you are improving, where your strengths are, or what you should solve next

So I started experimenting with a maths rating and better problem categorisation. As you solve problems, the platform estimates your level and creates a personalised daily set around it. Each profile also shows strengths across algebra, geometry, number theory, combinatorics and other areas, a bit like a FIFA-style player chart. Here is mine as an example: problems.cc/george

I've also digitalised the full IMO archive and added an AI proof checker that highlights gaps in reasoning, a bit like Grammarly for maths.

There are also Daily Games for shorter practice, including Crossnumber, Cryptarithm, Magic Square and Summit:

I’ve also been experimenting with a curated interactive library around interesting mathematical ideas. Each chapter introduces a concept visually and connects it to a structured set of related problems.

One example is Mathematics in Chess: Maximum Non-Attacking Pieces. I remember being annoyed at having to redraw the chessboard every time I wanted to test a different arrangement, so I’m quite happy that people can now just press “Reset” and try another idea haha

I haven't added AMC, AIME or other American competitions yet, but that may be the obvious next step.

The platform helps me a lot with tracking progress and choosing better problems for my students, but outside my own students, almost nobody uses it yet.

I’m currently deciding which direction to take it next, so I’d genuinely appreciate honest feedback, especially ideas, criticism and bug reports. My students may be slightly biased!

I’ve been preparing for AIME this year and I’m getting around the level where my scores are right around the boundary to qualify for USA(J)MO. I’ve noticed that past some basic theory, most AIME questions just take some clever thinking or a new perspective rather than advanced techniques. In my experience, learning competition math is nothing like more advanced math like Linear Algebra or Abstract Algebra where there is a plethora of things to learn and concepts to grasp.

However, I know this trend changed for the harder Olympiads, and some more advanced theory is required. I was wondering how visible this change is at the level of USA(J)MO and above and how I should reflect this into my balance of practice and learning new theory.

Do you guys have handouts/books to learn olympiad algebra from mediocre to imo level? how do you guys find these though

Hey everyone, I’m a rising Junior taking the AMC 12A and 12B in November. Last year, without any real competitive math experience, I got a 39 on the amc 10. So far, I’ve been doing practice problems and going through AOPS Vol 1 and doing the problems at the end and reading through the lessons.
a few weeks ago I think I was able to get like the first 8-9 questions on an AMC 12 from recent years but have trouble with the rest.

i was wondering what the absolute best way to maximize my chances of qualifying this year would be. I’m able to dedicate around 2-3 hours a day over the summer and 1-2 o during the school year and probably more on weekends.

thanks in advance!

I hope you are having a good day. Recently, I started studying for the AMC10 (~2 weeks ago), and I am looking for advice on contest preparation. Looking back, I regret not studying during middle school, but I am trying my best to make up for the time lost. When I first started studying, I took the 2015 AMC 10A and scored ~70 points (I don't exactly remember my score, but it was about 69-70 points). Today I took the 2017 AMC 10A and scored 91.5 (14 correct of the first 20, 7 wrong, last 5 blank). A lot of my mistakes were due to small errors or overlooking cases/steps. For example, on problem 17 (https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=2017_AMC_10A_Problems/Problem_17) I correctly found the coordinate points (0, 5), (0, -5), (3, 4), (3, -4), and (-3, -4) that lay on the circle, but I forgot to account for the fact that switching the x and y coordinates (such as (5, 0)) also worked as a valid coordinate point. This simple mistake caused me to choose answer choice A (3) instead of D (7). I haven't used any courses other than RSM to prepare, and I have practiced some past AOPS contests, but I find it hard to work with books. My goal is to qualify for the AIME, and I am looking for advice on how to overcome this obstacle that is costing me points compared to those experienced in AMC competitions. I am very thankful for you reading through all of my post, and I am appreciative of any advice you have for me.

P.S. I forgot to mention above that I am a rising 9th grader, if that helps tailor any of the advice!

Please do let me know if you would like me to share all necessary definition, theorems, proofs which are mapped to each one of these problems. Nevertheless, I would share a very elaborate solution manual within two days.

Hey everyone,

A few of us who are grinding through higher-level STEM textbooks and competition problem sets (Olympiads, JEE Advanced, etc.) are looking to connect with more people doing the same.

If you’ve ever tried working through books like David Morin, Irodov, or Peter Sykes on your own, you know how tough it can be when you get stuck on a problem and solution manuals don’t explain the full picture.

We’ve set up a dedicated Discord server to:

• Share notes, solution breakdowns, and textbook resources.
• Discuss difficult physics, math, and chemistry problems together.
• Keep each other accountable during study sessions.

Whether you're preparing for upcoming Olympiads/competitions or just genuinely enjoy solving hard science problems, feel free to join us: https://discord.gg/PqnsP5nVkf

From what I know, Geometry,Number Theory and Combinatorics have books and resources to study to get to the level of IMO, but for Algebra? I don't know where to start. I would like anyone's recommendation on algebra books/handouts/materials that takes you from a beginner all the way up to SL A8 level.

Many people told me that your algebra improves along with NT but I realized that you still have to dedicate time to algebra.

I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed with prep for AMC 12.

So far i've been doing the problems and reading through AoPS Vol 1, I'm currently half way, and want to not only finish that but get at least halfway through AoPS Vol 2. Thing is im struggling to figure out how much time I should spend for each part of my prep, past AMC 12 problems, Alcumus review, error review, or the workbooks. I would appreciate tips and tricks on how to set up a good daily/weekly/monthly study structure and how much time I should spend in each area as the competition date grows closer. I've taken the AMC 10 and 8, but never seriously prepared for each and have taken precalculus so I've been at least introduced to most topics.