DOCSLIB.ORG

The Complete List of Previous Putnam Winners

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Complete List of Previous Putnam Winners Eightieth Competition – 2019 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ashwin Sah, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Harvard University Kevin Sun, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Stanford University Yuan Yao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. University of California, Los Angeles Sehngtong Zhang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. University of Waterloo Daniel Zhu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Laura Pierson, Harvard University Qi Qi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hanzhi Zheng, Stanford University Seventy-Ninth Competition - 2018 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Dongryul Kim, Harvard University 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Shyam Narayanan, Harvard University 3. University of California, Los Angeles David Stoner, Harvard University 4. Columbia University Yuan Yao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. Stanford University Shengtong Zhang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Danielle Wang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seventy-Eighth Competition - 2017 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Omer Cerrahoglu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Harvard University Jiyang Gao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Princeton University Junyao Peng, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. University of Toronto Ashwin Sah, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. University of California at Los Angeles David Stoner, Harvard University Yunkun Zhou, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1 Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Ni Yan, University of California at Los Angeles Seventy-Seventh Competition - 2016 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Carnegie Mellon University Joshua D. Brakensiek, Carnegie Mellon University 2. Princeton University Dong Ryul Kim, Harvard University 3. Harvard University Thomas E. Swayze, Carnegie Mellon University 4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Samuel Zbarsky, Carnegie Mellon University 5. Stanford University Yunkun Zhou, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Simona Diaconu, Princeton University Seventy-Sixth Competition - 2015 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Pakawut Jiradilok, Harvard University 2. Carnegie Mellon University Bumsoo Kim, Princeton University 3. Princeton University Gyujin Oh, Stanford University 4. Stanford University Daniel Spivak, University of Waterloo 5. Harvard University David H. Yang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yunkun Zhou, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Danielle Wang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seventy-Fifth Competition - 2014 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ravi Jagadeesan, Harvard University 2. Harvard University Zipei Nie, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Mark A. Sellke, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. University of Waterloo Bobby C. Shen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. Carnegie Mellon University David H. Yang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lingfu Zhang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seventy-Fourth Competition - 2013 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mitchell M. Lee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Carnegie Mellon University Zipei Nie, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Stanford University Evan M. O'Dorney, Harvard University 4. Harvard University Bobby C. Shen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. California Institute of Technology David H. Yang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Xiao Wu, Yale University Seventy-third Competition - 2012 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Benjamin P. Gunby, Massachusetts Institute of 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Technology 3. University of California, Los Angeles Eric K. Larson, Harvard University 4. Stony Brook University Mitchell M. Lee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. Carnegie Mellon University Zipei Nie, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Evan M. O'Dorney, Harvard University Seventy-second Competition - 2011 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Samuel S. Elder, California Institute of Technology 2. Carnegie-Mellon University Brian R. Lawrence, California Institute of Technology 3. California Institute of Technology Seok Hyeong Lee, Stanford University 4. Stanford University Xiaosheng Mu, Yale University 5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Evan M. O'Dorney, Harvard University Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Fei Song, University of Virginia Seventy-first Competition - 2010 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. California Institute of Technology Yu Deng, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Brian R. Lawrence, California Institute of Technology 3. Harvard University Seok Hyeong Lee, Stanford University 4. University of California, Berkeley Colin P. Sandon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. University of Waterloo Alex (Lin) Zhai, Harvard University Seventieth Competition - 2009 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology William A. Johnson, University of Washington, Seattle 2. Harvard University Xiaosheng Mu, Yale University 3. California Institute of Technology Qingchun Ren, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. Stanford University Arnav Tripathy, Harvard University 5. Princeton University Yufei Zhao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3 Sixty-ninth Competition - 2008 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Arnav Tripathy, Harvard University 2. Princeton University Brian Lawrence, California Institute of Technology 3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seok Hyeong Lee, Stanford University 4. Stanford University Bohua Zhan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. California Institute of Technology Yufei Zhao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Viktoriya Krakovna, University of Toronto Sixty-eighth Competition - 2007 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Arnav Tripathy, Harvard University 2. Princeton University Xuancheng Shao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Qingchun Ren, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. Stanford University Brian Lawrence, California Institute of Technology 5. Duke University Jason Bland, California Institute of Technology Aaron Pixton, Princeton University Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Alison B. Miller, Harvard University Sixty-seventh Competition - 2006 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Princeton University Tiankai Liu, Harvard University 2. Harvard University Hansheng Diao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Po-Ru Loh, California Institute of Technology 4. University of Toronto Yufei Zhao, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. University of Chicago Daniel M. Kane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Alison B. Miller, Harvard University Sixty-sixth Competition - 2005 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Aaron C. Pixton, Princeton University 2. Princeton University Oleg I. Golberg, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Duke University Matthew M. Ince, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Daniel M. Kane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. University of Waterloo Ricky I. Liu, Harvard University Tiankai Liu, Harvard University 4 Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Alison B. Miller, Harvard University Sixty-fifth Competition - 2004 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reid W. Barton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Princeton University Vladimir V. Barzov, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Duke University Ana Caraiani, Princeton University 4. University of Waterloo Daniel M. Kane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. California Institute of Technology Aaron C. Pixton, Princeton University Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Ana Caraiani Princeton University Sixty-fourth Competition - 2003 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reid W. Barton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Harvard University Ana Caraiani, Princeton University 3. Duke University Gabriel D. Carroll, Harvard University 4. California Institute of Technology Ralph C. Furmaniak, University of Waterloo 5. Harvey Mudd College Daniel M. Kane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Ana Caraiani Princeton University Sixty-third Competition- 2002 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Reid W. Barton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Princeton University Gabriel D. Carroll, Harvard University 3. Duke University Deniss Cebikins, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. University of California, Berkeley Alexander B. Schwartz, Harvard Univesity 5. Stanford University Melanie E. Wood, Duke University Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize Melanie E. Wood, Duke University 5 Sixty-second Competition- 2001 Teams Individual Putnam Fellows 1. Harvard University Reid W. Barton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gabriel D. Carroll, Harvard University 3. Duke University Kevin D. Lacker, Duke University 4. University of California, Berkeley George Lee, Jr., Harvard University 5. Stanford University Jan K. Siwanowicz, City College, City University of New
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eigenvalue Distributions of Beta-Wishart Matrices
    Eigenvalue distributions of beta-Wishart matrices The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Edelman, Alan, and Plamen Koev. “Eigenvalue Distributions of Beta- Wishart Matrices.” Random Matrices: Theory and Applications 03, no. 02 (April 2014): 1450009. As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S2010326314500099 Publisher World Scientific Pub Co Pte Lt Version Author's final manuscript Citable link http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/116006 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ SIAM J. MATRIX ANAL. APPL. c 2013 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Vol. XX, No. X, pp. XX{XX EIGENVALUE DISTRIBUTIONS OF BETA-WISHART MATRICES∗ ALAN EDELMANy AND PLAMEN KOEVz Abstract. We derive explicit expressions for the distributions of the extreme eigenvalues of the Beta-Wishart random matrices in terms of the hypergeometric function of a matrix argument. These results generalize the classical results for the real (β = 1), complex (β = 2), and quaternion (β = 4) Wishart matrices to any β > 0. Key words. random matrix, Wishart distribution, eigenavalue, hypergeometric function of a matrix argument AMS subject classifications. 15A52, 60E05, 62H10, 65F15 DOI. XX.XXXX/SXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1. Introduction. Recently, the classical real (β = 1), complex (β = 2), and quaternion (β = 4) Wishart random matrix ensembles were generalized to any β > 0 by what is now called the Beta{Wishart ensemble [2, 9]. In this paper we derive the explicit distributions for the extreme eigenvalues and the trace of this ensemble as series of Jack functions and, in particular, in terms of the hypergeometric function of matrix argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Matrix Algorithms: Fast, Stable, Communication-Optimizing—Random?!
    Matrix algorithms: fast, stable, communication-optimizing—random?! Ioana Dumitriu Department of Mathematics University of Washington (Seattle) Joint work with Grey Ballard, James Demmel, Olga Holtz, Robert Kleinberg IPAM: Convex Optimization and Algebraic Geometry September 28, 2010 Ioana Dumitriu (UW) Matrix algorithms September 28, 2010 1 / 49 1 Motivation and Background Main Concerns in Numerical Linear Algebra Size issues 2 Reducing the flops Stability of FMM Stability of FLA Why Randomize? 3 Reducing communication Why is communication bad? Randomized Spectral Divide and Conquer Communication Costs 4 Conclusions Ioana Dumitriu (UW) Matrix algorithms September 28, 2010 2 / 49 Motivation and Background Main Concerns in Numerical Linear Algebra The big four issues in matrix algorithms. Accuracy of computation (how “far” the computed values are from the actual ones, in the presence of rounding error). Stability (how much the computed result will change if we perturb the problem a little bit). Speed/complexity (how many operations they require, e.g., multiplications). Parallelism (how to distribute the computation to multiple processors in order to optimize speed – if possible). Communication complexity (how to minimize the amount of back-and-forth between levels of memory or processors.) Ioana Dumitriu (UW) Matrix algorithms September 28, 2010 3 / 49 Motivation and Background Main Concerns in Numerical Linear Algebra The big four issues in matrix algorithms. Accuracy of computation (how “far” the computed values are from the actual ones, in the presence of rounding error). Stability (how much the computed result will change if we perturb the problem a little bit). Speed/flops complexity (how many operations they require, e.g., multiplications).
    [Show full text]
  • The Random Matrix Technique of Ghosts and Shadows
    The Random Matrix Technique of Ghosts and Shadows Alan Edelman November 22, 2009 Abstract We propose to abandon the notion that a random matrix has to be sampled for it to exist. Much of today's applied nite random matrix theory concerns real or complex random matrices (β = 1; 2). The threefold way so named by Dyson in 1962 [2] adds quaternions (β = 4). While it is true there are only three real division algebras (β=dimension over the reals), this mathematical fact while critical in some ways, in other ways is irrelevant and perhaps has been over interpreted over the decades. We introduce the notion of a ghost random matrix quantity that exists for every beta, and a shadow quantity which may be real or complex which allows for computation. Any number of computations have successfully given reasonable answers to date though diculties remain in some cases. Though it may seem absurd to have a three and a quarter dimensional or pi dimensional algebra, that is exactly what we propose and what we compute with. In the end β becomes a noisiness parameter rather than a dimension. 1 Introduction This conference article contains an idea which has become a technique. Perhaps it might be labeled a conjecture, but I think idea is the better label right now. The idea was discussed informally to a number of researchers and students at MIT for a number of years now, probably dating back to 2003 or so. It was also presented at a number of conferences [3] . As slides do not quite capture a talk, this seemed a good place to write down the ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics of Data Science
    SIAM JOURNAL ON Mathematics of Data Science Volume 2 • 2020 Editor-in-Chief Tamara G. Kolda, Sandia National Laboratories Section Editors Mark Girolami, University of Cambridge, UK Alfred Hero, University of Michigan, USA Robert D. Nowak, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA Joel A. Tropp, California Institute of Technology, USA Associate Editors Maria-Florina Balcan, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Vianney Perchet, ENSAE, CRITEO, France Rina Foygel Barber, University of Chicago, USA Jonas Peters, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Mikhail Belkin, University of California, San Diego, USA Natesh Pillai, Harvard University, USA Robert Calderbank, Duke University, USA Ali Pinar, Sandia National Laboratories, USA Coralia Cartis, University of Oxford, UK Mason Porter, University of Califrornia, Los Angeles, USA Venkat Chandrasekaran, California Institute of Technology, Maxim Raginsky, University of Illinois, USA Urbana-Champaign, USA Patrick L. Combettes, North Carolina State University, USA Bala Rajaratnam, University of California, Davis, USA Alexandre d’Aspremont, CRNS, Ecole Normale Superieure, Philippe Rigollet, MIT, USA France Justin Romberg, Georgia Tech, USA Ioana Dumitriu, University of California, San Diego, USA C. Seshadhri, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA Maryam Fazel, University of Washington, USA Amit Singer, Princeton University, USA David F. Gleich, Purdue University, USA Marc Teboulle, Tel Aviv University, Israel Wouter Koolen, CWI, the Netherlands Caroline Uhler, MIT, USA Gitta Kutyniok, University of Munich, Germany
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Algebraic Geometry
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/surv/123 hematical Surveys and onographs olume 123 Fundamental Algebraic Geometry Grothendieck's FGA Explained Barbara Fantechi Lothar Gottsche Luc lllusie Steven L. Kleiman Nitin Nitsure AngeloVistoli American Mathematical Society U^VDED^ EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Jerry L. Bona Peter S. Landweber Michael G. Eastwood Michael P. Loss J. T. Stafford, Chair 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 14-01, 14C20, 13D10, 14D15, 14K30, 18F10, 18D30. For additional information and updates on this book, visit www.ams.org/bookpages/surv-123 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fundamental algebraic geometry : Grothendieck's FGA explained / Barbara Fantechi p. cm. — (Mathematical surveys and monographs, ISSN 0076-5376 ; v. 123) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8218-3541-6 (pbk. : acid-free paper) ISBN 0-8218-4245-5 (soft cover : acid-free paper) 1. Geometry, Algebraic. 2. Grothendieck groups. 3. Grothendieck categories. I Barbara, 1966- II. Mathematical surveys and monographs ; no. 123. QA564.F86 2005 516.3'5—dc22 2005053614 Copying and reprinting. Individual readers of this publication, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make fair use of the material, such as to copy a chapter for use in teaching or research. Permission is granted to quote brief passages from this publication in reviews, provided the customary acknowledgment of the source is given. Republication, systematic copying, or multiple reproduction of any material in this publication is permitted only under license from the American Mathematical Society. Requests for such permission should be addressed to the Acquisitions Department, American Mathematical Society, 201 Charles Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02904-2294, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-2018 Annual Report
    Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics Annual Report May 1, 2017 – April 30, 2018 Brendan Hassett, Director Mathew Borton, IT Director Jeff Brock, Associate Director Ruth Crane, Assistant Director Sigal Gottlieb, Deputy Director Elisenda Grigsby, Deputy Director Jeffrey Hoffstein, Consulting Associate Director Caroline Klivans, Associate Director Jill Pipher, Consulting Associate Director Bjorn Sandstede, Associate Director Homer Walker, Consulting Associate Director Ulrica Wilson, Associate Director for Diversity and Outreach Table of Contents Mission ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Core Programs and Events ......................................................................................................... 6 Participant Summaries by Program Type ................................................................................... 9 ICERM Funded Participants ................................................................................................................. 9 All Participants (ICERM funded and Non-ICERM funded) .................................................................. 10 ICERM Funded Speakers ................................................................................................................... 11 All Speakers (ICERM funded and Non-ICERM funded) ...................................................................... 12 ICERM Funded Postdocs ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ANNOUNCEMENT of WINNERS of the Seventy-Ninth Competition Held on December 1, 2018
    ANNOUNCEMENT OF WINNERS of the seventy-ninth competition held on December 1, 2018 WINNING TEAMS Rank School Team Members (in alphabetical order) 1 HARVARD UNIVERSITY Dongryul Kim, Shyam Narayanan, David Stoner 2 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Junyao Peng, Ashwin Sah, Yunkun Zhou 3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES Ciprian Mircea Bonciocat, Xiaoyu Huang, Konstantin Miagkov 4 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Quang Dao, Myeonhu Kim, Matthew Lerner-Brecher 5 STANFORD UNIVERSITY David Kewei Lin, Hanzhi Zheng, Yifan Zhu The institution with the first-place team receives an award of $25,000, and each member of the team receives $1,000. The awards for second place are $20,000 and $800; for third place, $15,000 and $600; for fourth place, $10,000 and $400; and for fifth place, $5,000 and $200. In each of the following categories, the listing is in alphabetical order. THE PUTNAM FELLOWS — THE FIVE HIGHEST RANKING INDIVIDUALS Each receives an award of $2,500. DONGRYUL KIM Harvard University SHYAM NARAYANAN Harvard University DAVID STONER Harvard University YUAN YAO Massachusetts Institute of Technology SHENGTONG ZHANG Massachusetts Institute of Technology THE NEXT TEN HIGHEST RANKING INDIVIDUALS Each receives an award of $1,000. MURILO CORATO ZANARELLA Princeton University JIYANG GAO Massachusetts Institute of Technology ANDREW GU Massachusetts Institute of Technology JAMES LIN Massachusetts Institute of Technology MICHAEL MA Massachusetts Institute of Technology ASHWIN SAH Massachusetts Institute of Technology KEVIN SUN Massachusetts Institute of Technology DANIELLE WANG Massachusetts Institute of Technology HUNG-HSUN YU Massachusetts Institute of Technology YUNKUN ZHOU Massachusetts Institute of Technology THE WILLIAM LOWELL PUTNAM MATHEMATICAL COMPETITION ELIZABETH LOWELL PUTNAM PRIZE The winner receives an award of $1,000.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Mathematics Newsletter
    AUTUMN 2009 NEWSLETTER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Mathematics NEWS 1 DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS NEWS MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR As you might imagine, 2009 brought Department’s work continued unabated. We have a string of unusual challenges to our department. good news to share with you in this newsletter, such as the There were uncertainties well into the UW Sophomore Medal awarded to Chad Klumb, the new- spring regarding our 2009-10 aca- found success of our students in the Putnam Competition, demic year budget. Graduate student the election of Gunther Uhlmann to the American Academy recruitment, which takes place across of Arts and Sciences, and the NSF CAREER award to Ioana the nation during the winter, was Dumitriu. Our undergraduate degree programs set new highs conducted without knowing the level at the end of the 2008-09 academic year with 368 Math of our TA funding. Similar scenarios majors, and with a total of 537 majors in Math and ACMS. played out nationally as few educational institutions were Thirteen graduate students completed the PhD, continuing spared by the financial crisis. In a survey conducted by the our recent trend of awarding significantly more PhDs than American Mathematical Society, mathematics departments the Department’s historical annual average of 6.5. reported about 900 expected faculty openings nationally, During the spring and summer, we received a boost of down from about 1,500 in a typical year, despite expecting federal funding, thanks to the excellent research projects to award 1,300 PhDs in 2009 as in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobias Lee Johnson College of Staten Island, 1S-225 [email protected] 2800 Victory Blvd
    Tobias Lee Johnson College of Staten Island, 1S-225 [email protected] 2800 Victory Blvd. http://www.math.csi.cuny.edu/~tobiasljohnson/ Staten Island, NY 10314 EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION Assistant Professor, College of Staten Island (CUNY) Fall 2017– NSF Postdoctoral Fellow New York University; sponsored by Gérard Ben Arous Fall 2016–Spring 2017 University of Southern California; sponsored by Larry Goldstein Fall 2014–Spring 2016 Ph.D. in Mathematics, University of Washington Fall 2008–Spring 2014 Advised by Ioana Dumitriu and Soumik Pal B.A. in Mathematics, Yale University Fall 2003–Spring 2007 RESEARCH Interests: probability theory and combinatorics, with a focus on discrete random structures and interacting particle systems; Stein’s method Papers: 20. Diffusion-limited annihilating systems and the increasing convex order, with Riti Bahl, Philip Barnet, and Matthew Junge. Submitted. arXiv:2104.12797 19. Particle density in diffusion-limited annihilating systems, with Matthew Junge, Hanbaek Lyu, and David Sivakoff. Preprint. arXiv:2005.06018 18. Continuous phase transitions on Galton–Watson trees. Submitted. arXiv:2007.13864 2020 17. Random tree recursions: which fixed points correspond to tangible sets of trees?, with Moumanti Podder and Fiona Skerman. Random Structures Algorithms, 56(3):796–837, 2020. arXiv:1808.03019 2019 16. Cover time for the frog model on trees, with Christopher Hoffman and Matthew Junge. Forum Math. Sigma, 7, e41 1–49, 2019. arXiv:1802.03428 15. Infection spread for the frog model on trees, with Christopher Hoffman and Matthew Junge. Electron. J. Probab., 24 (2019), no. 112, 1–29. arXiv:1710.05884 14. Sensitivity of the frog model to initial conditions, with Leonardo T.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Second Eigenvalue of Random Bipartite Biregular Graphs
    ON THE SECOND EIGENVALUE OF RANDOM BIPARTITE BIREGULAR GRAPHS YIZHE ZHU Abstract. We consider the spectral gap of a uniformly chosen random (d1; d2)-biregular bipartite graph G with jV j = n; jV j = m, where d ; d could possibly grow with n and m. Let A be the adjacency matrix 1 2 1 2 p 2=3 of G. Under the assumption that d1 ≥ d2 and d2 = O(n ); we show that λ2(A) = O( d1) with high probability. As a corollary, combining the results from [47],p we confirm a conjecture in [14] that the second singular value of a uniform random d-regular digraph is O( d) for 1 ≤ d ≤ n=2 with highp probability. This also implies that the second eigenvalue of a uniform random d-regular digraph is O( d) for 1 ≤ d ≤ n=2 with high probability. 2 Assuming d2 = O(1) and d1 = O(n ), we further prove that for a random (d1; d2)-biregular bipartite 2 p graph, jλi (A) − d1j = O( d1(d2 − 1)) for all 2 ≤ i ≤ n + m − 1 with high probability. The proofs of the two results are based on the size biased coupling method introduced in [13] for random d-regular graphs and several new switching operations we defined for random bipartite biregular graphs. 1. Introduction An expander graph is a sparse graph that has strong connectivity properties and exhibits rapid mixing. Expander graphs play an important role in computer science including sampling, complexity theory, and the design of error-correcting codes (see [27]). When a graph is d-regular, i.e., each vertex has degree d, quantification of expansion is possible based on the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed MS in Data Science at Its October 1
    ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION, 0002 UCSD, LA JOLLA, CA 92093-0002 (858) 534-3640 FAX (858) 534-4528 October 27, 2020 PROFESSOR RAJESH GUPTA Halicioğlu Data Science Institute SUBJECT: Proposed MS in Data Science At its October 12, 2020 meeting, the Graduate Council approved the proposal to establish a graduate degree program of study leading to a Master of Science (M.S.) in Data Science. The Graduate Council will forward the proposal for placement on an upcoming Representative Assembly agenda. Please note that proposers may not accept applications to the program or admit students until systemwide review of the proposal is complete and the UC Office of the President has issued a final outcome. Sincerely, Lynn Russell, Chair Graduate Council cc: M. Allen J. Antony S. Constable R. Continetti B. Cowan T. Javidi C. Lyons J. Morgan K. Ng R. Rodriguez D. Salmon Y. Wo l l ma n A Proposal for a Program of Graduate Study in Data Science leading to a degree in Master of Science in Data Science (MS/DS) By: MS Program Committee, HDSI Yoav Freund, Shankar Subramaniam, Virginia de Sa, Ery Arias-Castro, Armin Schwartzman, Dimitris Politis, Ilkay Altintas, Rayan Saab. Contacts: Academic: Rajesh K. Gupta Director, Halıcıoğlu Data Science Institute (HDSI) (858) 822-4391 [email protected] Administrative: Yvonne Wollman Student Affairs Manager Halıcıoğlu Data Science Institute (HDSI) (858) 246-5427 [email protected] Version History: March 6, 2020: Version 1.0 submitted for review by graduate division. April 12, 2020: Version 2.0 submitted to academic senate and revised administrative review. May 22, 2020: Version 3.0 submitted to academic senate after administrative revisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sponsored by Sun Microsystems Presented by the Mathematical
    1700 1800 1900 2000 Tripos Charlotte Angas Scott Putnam Competition Winners The origins of the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos date back at least to the fteenth century. In 1880, Scott was the rst woman to achieve First Class Honours on the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. As a consequence, women were formally admitted to the The MAA Putnam Competition is a university-level mathematics contest The examination evolved from disputations or wrangles which required students vying for an examinations. She served as a Lecturer in mathematics at Girton College, Cambridge and attended Arthur Cayley’s lectures. In 1885, under his supervision, she took for students in the United States and Canada that began in 1938 with honors degree to debate a thesis of their own choosing before opponents in the presence an external D.Sc. degree with honors from the University of London, becoming the rst British woman to receive a doctorate in any subject and the second European fewer than 200 participants; it has grown to nearly 4000 including many of a moderator who sat on a three legged stool or tripos. The person who ranked rst on the woman, after So a Kovalevskaia, to receive a doctorate in mathematics. She migrated to the United States to become chair of the mathematics department at Bryn international students. In 1996 Ioana Dumitriu of Romania was the rst Tripos was called the Senior Wrangler. The person who ranked last was designated the Wooden Mawr, a position she held for nearly forty years supervising seven doctoral dissertations. She served as co-editor of the American Journal of Mathematics.
    [Show full text]