Remarks on English

a.k.a. Advice for writing proofs

Evan Chen
March 6, 2020

Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds.

— G. H. Hardy

§1 Grading
Your score on an olympiad problem is a nonnegative integer at most 7. The unspoken
rubric reads something like the following:
Description
7∗ Problem was solved
6 Tiny slip (and contestant could repair)
5 Small gap or mistake, but non-central
2 Lots of genuine progress
1∗ Significant non-trivial progress
0∗ “Busy work”, special cases, lots of writing
The “default” scores are starred above. Note that, unlike high school English class or
the SAT essay, you don’t get points just because you wrote a lot!
In theory, your solutions to olympiads are graded solely based on math. In practice,
style still does play a role in some ways: the harder your solution is to understand, the
less likely the grader is to understand you, and the less likely you are to earn points you
deserve.1

§2 Stylistic suggestions
Here are some tips of mine that I don’t think are stressed enough.

§2.1 Never write wrong math

This is much more of a math issue than a style issue: you can lose all of your points for
making false claims. Personally, I often stop reading a solution if it makes an egregiously
false claim: if someone claims that some fixed point is the incenter of ABC, when it’s
actually the arc midpoint, then I know the solution isn’t going to have any substantial
progress.
As a special case, don’t say something that is partially true and then say how to fix it
later. At best this will annoy the grader; at worst they may get confused and think the
solution is wrong.
1
In addition, poorly written solutions make the graders sad, and you wouldn’t want that, would you?

1
Evan Chen (March 6, 2020) Remarks on English

§2.2 Emphasize the point where you cross the ocean

Solutions to olympiad problems often involve a few key ideas, with the rest of the solution
being checking details. You want graders to immediately see all the key ideas in the
solution: this way, they quickly have a high-level understanding of your approach.
Let me share a quote from Scott Aaronson:

Suppose your friend in Boston blindfolded you, drove you around for twenty
minutes, then took the blindfold off and claimed you were now in Beijing. Yes,
you do see Chinese signs and pagoda roofs, and no, you can’t immediately
disprove him — but based on your knowledge of both cars and geography,
isn’t it more likely you’re just in Chinatown? . . . We start in Boston, we
end up in Beijing, and at no point is anything resembling an ocean
ever crossed.

Olympiad solutions work the same way: a geometry solution might require a student to
do some angle chasing, use Fact 5 to deduce that two triangles are congruent, and then
finish by doing a little more angle chasing. In that case, you want to highlight the key
step of proving the two triangles were congruent, so the grader sees it immediately and
can say “okay, this student is using this approach”.
Ways that you can highlight this are:

• Isolating crucial steps and claims as their own lemmas.2

• Using claims to say what you’re doing. Rather than doing angle chasing and
writing “blah blah blah, therefore 4MB IB M ∼ 4MC IC M ”, consider instead “We
claim 4MB IB M ∼ 4MC IC M , proof”.

• Displaying important equations. For example, notice how the line

4MB IB M ∼ 4MC IC M (1)

jumps out at the reader. You can even number such claims to reference them letter,
e.g. “by (1)”. This is especially useful in functional equations.

• Just say it! Little hints like “the crucial claim is X” or “the main idea is Y ” are
immensely helpful. Don’t make X and Y look like another intermediate step.

§2.3 “Find all. . . ”

Many problems will ask you to “find all objects satisfying some condition” (for example,
functional equations, Diophantine equations). For any solution of this form, I strongly
recommend that you structure your solution as follows:

• Start by writing “We claim the answer is . . . ”.

• Then, say “We prove these satisfy the conditions”, and do so. For example,
in a functional equation with answer f (x) = x2 , you should plug this f back in
and verify the equation is satisfied. Even if this verification is trivial, you must still
explicitly include it, because it is part of the problem.

• Finally, say “Now we prove these are the only ones” and do so.
2
This is often useful for another reason: breaking the proof into individual steps. The complexity of
understanding a proof grows super-linearly in its length; therefore breaking it into smaller chunks is
often a good thing.

2
Evan Chen (March 6, 2020) Remarks on English

Similarly, some problems will ask you to “find the minimum/maximum value of X”.
In such situations, I strongly recommend you write your solution as follows:

• Start by writing “We claim the minimum/maximum is . . . ”.

• Then, say “We prove that this is attainable”, and give the construction (or
otherwise prove existence). Even if this verification is trivial, you must still explicitly
include it, because it is part of the problem.

• Finally, say “We prove this is a lower/upper bound”, and do so.

Failing to do one of the steps mentioned above is a classic newbie mistake. Make it
abundantly clear to the grader that you know the difference between a bound and a
maximum.

§2.4 Leave space

Most people don’t leave enough space. This makes solutions hard to read.
Examples of things you can do:

• Skip a line after paragraphs. Use paragraph breaks more often than you already
do.

• If you isolate a specific lemma or claim in your proof, then it should be on its
own line, with some whitespace before and after it.

• Any time you do casework, you should always split cases into separate paragraphs
or bullet points. Make it visually clear when each case begins and ends.

• Display important equations, rather than squeezing them into paragraphs. If you
have a long calculation, then do an aligned display3 rather than squeezing it into
a paragraph. For example, instead of writing 0 ≤ (a − b)2 = (a + b)2 − 4ab =
(10 − c)2 − 4 (25 − c(a + b)) = (10 − c)2 − 4 (25 − c(10 − c)) = c(20 − 3c), write
instead

0 ≤ (a − b)2
= (a + b)2 − 4ab
= (10 − c)2 − 4 (25 − c(a + b))
= (10 − c)2 − 4 (25 − c(10 − c))
= c(20 − 3c).

§2.5 Other things

Try to have nice handwriting. Include a large, scaled diagram in geometry problems4 .
Leave 1-inch (or more) margins. Write your proofs forwards even if you solved the
problem backwards. If you need to cite a theorem, say clearly how you’re doing so.
Use variable names at your discretion. Strike out and cross out unwanted parts of your
solution (don’t scribble).
I’m sure someone has told you these before. If not, consider reading https://www.
artofproblemsolving.com/articles/how-to-write-solution.

3
This is the align* environment, for those of you that like LATEX.
4
And try to not have circles which look like potatoes.

3
Evan Chen (March 6, 2020) Remarks on English

§3 Example
Consider the following problem.

(USAMO 2014) Let a, b, c, d be real numbers such that b − d ≥ 5 and all zeros
x1 , x2 , x3 , and x4 of the polynomial P (x) = x4 + ax3 + bx2 + cx + d are real. Find
the smallest value the product

(x21 + 1)(x22 + 1)(x23 + 1)(x24 + 1)

can take.

Here are two ways you could write the solution.5

x2j + 1 = (x − i)(x + i)∀j =⇒

Q 2 Q
Pretty poor solution. xj + 1 = (xj +
i)(xj − i) = P (i)P (−i) so (b − d − 1)2 + (a − c)2 . ∵ xj = 1 → 16 and 42 − 1 = 5.

b − d ≥ 5, so ≥ 16.

Better solution. The answer is 16 . This can be achieved
by taking x1 = x2 =

4 4
x3 = x4 = 1, whence the product is 2 = 16, and b − d = 2 − 1 = 5.
Now, we prove this is a lower bound. The key observation is that
4
Y 4
Y
x2j (xj − i)(xj + i) = P (i)P (−i) = |P (i)|2 .


+1 =
j=1 j=1

Consequently, we have

x21 + 1 x22 + 1 x23 + 1 x21 + 1 = (b − d − 1)2 + (a − c)2

≥ (5 − 1)2 + 02 = 16.

This proves the lower bound.

These solutions have the same mathematical content. But notice how in the better
solution:

• The second solution makes it clear from the beginning what the answer is, and
what the equality case is. (The first solution mixes these together.)

• Moreover, the main idea (of factoring with i) is explicitly labeled, so that even if
you have never seen the problem before, you can tell at a glance what the main
idea of the solution is.

• The equations are displayed in the second solution, making them much easier to
read than in the first.

The second solution, despite being twice as “long”, is by far faster to read than the first
solution. In this case, the difference is not so bad because the problem and solution are
quite short. However, in more involved problems the “not-so-good solution” becomes the
“completely unreadable solution”.

5
Former solution worsened June 2018, with suggestions from Mitchell Lee.

4
Evan Chen (March 6, 2020) Remarks on English

§A Notes specific to USA(J)MO

Up until now I’ve given my advice for how to write solutions well. But I know a lot of
you are specifically interested in olympiad grading, so here are a few quick remarks to
that end. These comments are meant for USA(J)MO in particular but should apply to
other respectable contests as well.

§A.1 More examples of decent write-ups

I should note that on my website

https://web.evanchen.cc/problems.html

there are a very large number of solutions written by me to past problems on the USAMO,
IMO, USA TST(ST), etc. In particular, all USAMO and IMO problems since the year
2000 are present.
Not all the solutions are complete (some of them are just outlines), but I think the
majority of them are full write-ups, and these can help provide more examples of solutions
that you can compare to or model your own work after.

§A.2 How much detail to include

A common question I get is what the minimum amount of detail needed to get full marks
for a solution is. The answer is simple: enough to convince the grader you solved the
problem.
There is a myth that, sort of like your high school English or math teacher, you can
lose points for “not writing enough” or not having certain key words or leaving out details
that were obvious to everyone. This is not really how it works. USAMO graders are
interested in whether you solved the problem rather than your ability to fill pages with
ink.
Basically, you lose points if a student who did NOT solve the problem could
have written the same words as you. For example, whenever you say something
like “it’s easy to see X”, the grader has to ask whether you actually understand why X
is true, or don’t know and are just bluffing. So that’s always the criteria you should have
in your head when deciding what needs to be written out in full.
As a very loose rule of thumb, the official solutions file for USAMO (published by
MAA) is about as terse as you can be.

§A.3 Citing lemmas

In general it is usually okay to cite a result that is (i) named, and (ii) does not trivialize
the given problem. Anything outside this scope is a “grey area” and I don’t want to
commit to a hard set of guidelines.
However, the main thing I want to say is that if in doubt, outline a proof. You
don’t have to choose between the extremes “say absolute zero” and “prove quoted lemma
in full gory detail”. It’s better to just include a couple lines giving the overall idea of the
proof to show that you could write it out if you wanted to, but are omitting it because
the result is already known.

5
Evan Chen (March 6, 2020) Remarks on English

§A.4 Fake-solving problems

With all that said, I would say in the end, when people don’t get the points they
expect, it’s because their solution is actually wrong or incomplete, not because
they wrote it poorly. This is true something like 90% of the time, maybe more.
Some common ways to lose most or all of your points by virtue of not having solved
the problem:

• Flipping an inequality sign.

• Not understanding what the word “function” means in a functional equation.

• Making some assumption that seems intuitive, but actually requires justification
(and is the main difficulty of the problem).

• Stating key assertions with no proof (often which are equivalent to the problem).

• Making some actual logical error (for example, the so-called “pointwise trap”).

• Missing some case or possibility that the student didn’t realize existed.

• Not understanding the problem statement altogether (for example, not knowing
that “find all” problems have two parts, and only doing one direction).

Some examples of USAMO problems that are notorious for generating wrong solutions:
USAMO 2003/6, USAMO 2007/2, USAMO 2010/3, USAMO 2016/4.
I should say there is no shame in having an incorrect solution to a problem, it really
happens to everyone more often than anyone wants to admit. Just don’t delude yourself
into thinking that you lost points you deserved because the graders didn’t like your style.

6
Evan Chen (March 6, 2020) Remarks on English

§B Checking your work

§B.1 How to check your solutions during the year
When you are practicing during the year, the best way to get feedback on proofs is to
have a fried/coach who can check your work and provide suggestions. But the supply of
people willing to do this is admittedly very low, so most people are not so lucky to have
access to feedback.
If you don’t have access to such feedback, I suggest the following second-best measures.

• Write up neatly. The more clear your write-up is, the more likely you are to catch
your own mistakes.

• Write up your solutions to past IMO/USAMO problems in full, and post them on
the Art of Problem Solving forum under the thread for that problem (not the wiki).
By Cunningham’s Law, if you have a blatantly wrong solution, someone will often
point it out within a few hours.

• Compare your solutions to others posted. Often, a problem will have essentially
only a few approaches, and you’ll find another user who had more or less the same
approach.6 This serves as a sanity check that what you have does work.
If you find your solution is way shorter or simpler than everyone else, then you have
good reason to be suspicious. Look for the ocean-crossing point in other people’s
solutions. Why did they have to work so hard there, while you did not? Often,
that’s where the mistake will be.

§B.2 How to check your solutions during a contest

Of course, it is critical to eventually be able to check your own work independently
without consulting other people. The IMO does not have live feedback; by the time
someone tells you about a mistake, it is too late!
If you are a beginner it might take a while to reach this stage, but you should set this
as a goal for where you want to end up. It is easier than you might expect — as you
naturally get better at solving problems, your instincts about the correctness of proofs
will automatically develop too.
During the contest, the only advice I have is “write clearly and carefully” (which is
why developing these habits pays off later). I cannot tell you how many times I realized
only during the write-up phase that the “solution” I thought I had was actually flawed.

6
There are unfortunately some problems, like USAMO 2017/1, where so many different solutions are
possible that any two people are likely to have different approaches.