The maths degree we know and love is lovely, we learn essentials: founding axioms to the great ziggurat of learnedness that is mathematics: we compute, numbercrunch and prove what we are told, and in doing so prepare ourselves for the finer points of mathematics.

But like Zeno's runner, our efforts sometimes seem to bring us only fractions closer, and the beautiful results- the s of the modern age seem well beyond collective grasp. Problems come and problems go, example sheets where the same theorem applies over and over, testing only mechanism (though testing well); to force no sweat or keen artistic eye. By the second year: apathy and a loss of context can suck exams from underneath your feet.

The first remedy was 'Discussion groups', a chance to see those beautiful results and to watch the odd and often dry definitions of your first two years working in context, potent and incisive. To those that haven't tried it already, I wholeheartedly suggest you do: those that have have struggled, but now see the maths they are made to do in its rightful place (think the first time you got , but with that thing that's freaking you out right now...). If you are not doing what you love, [Dg] can be a place to learn to love what you are doing.

As a few of you with ears pressed firmly to the ground may already know, David Mond, singular legend that he is, is trialling a new problems system next year for the first years. Section C has always been around- normally just versions of the original questions with harder numbers, or a proof of something pretty tedious. As of next year they are being revamped, rejigged and remathsified (I believe, also with a prize for the best portfolio of answered questions). I set up this thread to hear what the devil you all thought of it...

I personally think it's an awesome plan, my ideas so far are

• The potential questions fall into four basic categories- though I'm not sure which I like best:
  1. Analysis II style proofs from just outside the course
  2. Preparatory questions: ie. next week we will prove... hint: try taking ...
  3. Proofs using techniques in the course, but way outside the scope as with the advanced metric spaces questions this year
  4. Links to other courses: like tackling some functional analysis using linear algebra
• Solutions should be given in a [Dg] type environment, keeping the emphasis on independent learningness
• I've recommended some of the exec to help with questions (Cosmin, Dave)
• Perhaps maths Cafe could be emphasized as a drop in time for Sec-C (I like that abbreviation!...)

...And, er that's about it... After which long windedness it's your turn! What think you? Do you wish you had it? Or if it's aimed at the strong students, would it have alienated you? Have I missed stuff out?

I think it's a great idea but it's highly dependant on the actual quality of the C-questions: if it's meant to gauge the extra-curricular interest of students then boring questions would totally defeat the purpose: people would do them in order to get the points and not because they're genuinely interested in the maths behind them. I love Dg-type presentation part but how is this done from an official standpoint (Would the dept really let us handle something as important or would we need someone from the dept at this sort of presentation)? Also, I'm obviously very happy to help with anything related to it.

Most of the C questions are obvious anyway.

I remember this coming up at the SSLC, and thinking that it was a good idea. However i strongly feel that this would have to be for a prize, and not for credit... If they started giving credit for doing C questions then they'd have to start giving credit for writing maths based songs, or maybe even doing maths based plays... hmm...

Owen

PS. Richard, i disagree with your point, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it... And voltaire agrees with me too...

Obviously