Currently, the email address pow@mathsci.kaist.ac.kr is not working normally. Please submit your solutions to jioon.lee@kaist.edu instead. The due (for both POW 2025-13 and POW 2025-14) is postponed to Oct. 3 (Fri.) 23:59 pm.
Category Archives: annoncement
Notice on POW 2025-13
Since there were no solutions submitted for POW 2025-13, we will postpone the due date of POW 2025-13 to Oct. 3 (Fri.) 3PM.
We remark that the problem is designed so that the answer with smallest number of punches earns +4, and the next four best answers earn +3 each. (In other words, you may earn some points even if your answer is not optimal.)
Notice on POW 2024-12
There was a condition missing in POW 2024-12, which is that every entry of \( A \) is \( 0 \) or \( 1 \). The condition in the problem is now corrected.
Concluding POW 2024 spring semester
POW 2024 spring semester has ended. We apologize for many issues we had experienced this semester. Thank you for your participation, and see you in the fall semester.
Notice on POW 2024-05 and POW 2024-06
It is found that there is a flaw in POW 2024-05; some students showed that the collection of all Knotennullstelle numbers is not a discrete subset of \( \mathbb{C} \). We again apologize for the inconvenience.
To acknowledge the students who reported the flaws in POW 2024-05 and POW 2024-06, we decided to give credits to 김준홍 (KAIST 수리과학과 20학번, +4) and 지은성 (KAIST 수리과학과 20학번, +3) for POW 2024-05 and Anar Rzayev (KAIST 전산학부 19학번, +4) for POW 2024-06.
Here is a “solution” of problem 2024-05.
POW 2024-06 Canceled
It is found that there is a flaw in POW 2024-06; the inequality in the problem is not satisfied with the given g(t). Since it is too late to revise the problem again with a new deadline, we decide to cancel POW 2024-06. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Another notice on POW 2024-06
Due to the change of the assumption in POW 2024-06, the due date for the submitting the solution is postponed to May 13 (Mon.) 3PM. (Originally, it was 3PM Friday.)
Notice on POW 2024-06
In POW 2024-06, there was a typo in the assumption. It is now corrected that the assumption holds for \( t \in [-1, 1] \). (Originally, it was for \( t \in \mathbb{R} \).)
Notice on POW 2024-05
POW 2024-05 is still open. (No correct solutions have been submitted.) Anyone who first submits a correct (full) solution will get the full credit.
Notice on POW 2013-19
In POW 2013-19, there was a typo in the assumption on \( a_1, \dots, a_{27} \). The inequality is now corrected to the equality.
