Is it common for an undergraduate thesis in pure mathematics to prove something new?

Question

What do undergraduate students in mathematics do for their thesis, if they have done one, besides expository or applied math?

I was thinking that the kind of research they do is something applied, say using math in social sciences or a problem in one of the less rigorous natural sciences, or discussing such a problem (that's what expository is, right?).

To me it seems something non-expository or non-applied is an original contribution to mathematics, something that PhD students do.

I attended some pure math undergraduate thesis presentations. I was quite surprised: Did they prove anything new? Never bothered to ask due to fear of looking stupid. Would it be out of the ordinary to expect an undergraduate proves something new? If they did not prove anything new, what the heck are they talking about?

It seems like if it's not new, they are giving a lecture. If it's new, that seems like a PhD-level accomplishment.

I mean, do math undergraduates frequently prove new things?

Answer 1

I'm going to disagree with Oswald. In my experience, undergraduate students do not often prove new things in pure math. I wouldn't even say master's theses often contain new results. There are a few main reasons for this.

Firstly, pure mathematics operates at a level that is not very accessible for most undergraduates, even those doing research. Undergraduates doing research are often well out of their depth and holding on for dear life. This can mostly be attributed to just not having enough time to get up to speed with what is considered modern mathematics. Most courses in mathematics at the undergraduate level are about math from 50-100 years ago (if not older).

Secondly, undergraduates do not often have the mathematical experience to know what the right plan of attack is when faced with an abstract and new problem and they may not know how to check their work thoroughly to make sure there are no major oversights or blunders. A lot of mathematics involves lateral thinking and it takes a lot of time to build those connections. The hardest part of a pure math PhD (in my opinion) is learning how to attack a problem no one has considered before. Standard techniques that others used may not be useful at all to you for one reason or another. An undergraduate won't have the creativity to navigate this kind of issue because the kind of creativity that is needed comes with a lot of experience. Even when an undergraduate student thinks they've proved something, the nuances of their argument likely will not be apparent to them. (This is especially true when it comes to functional analytic/measure theoretic arguments - the devil is in the details.) Thus a proposed proof may not even be close to being right.

Lastly, not many undergraduates in pure math do research because the gap they have to overcome between coursework and modern mathematics is pretty substantial. Those that make contributions in pure math are those that are very, very talented and have very thorough backgrounds (backgrounds that rival master's/PhD students).

Undergraduates in pure math are not expected to make contributions. That is not what research is about for them. Introducing an undergraduate to research serves a couple of different purposes: it introduces them to more advanced topics and it gives them a taste of what research is like so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not graduate school is right for them. As such, the theses are more like surveys of a specialized topic in mathematics. There is a lot of independent learning involved and there may be some unique examples, insights, and connections contained therein. They may not be presenting "original" work, but poster sessions are there to present what they've learned regardless of whether or not it was original. So yes, it is kind of like a lecture. They are undergraduates and far from being experts in their field.

Note that I am not saying that no undergraduate ever produces new results in pure math (there are some high school students that are better than most PhDs), but it is not a common occurrence and is not expected or considered the norm.

Answer 2

The answers so far contain a yes and a no, so let me add a yes-and-no.

Undergraduates can - and often do - prove new things, but hardly ever anything of importance. It is up to the advisor to find an interesting question which is simple enough to serve as the topic of a thesis, but not yet dealt with in the literature. Different from a Ph.D., a bachelor or master thesis is heavily constrained in time, so as an advisor you should only give a topic if you are pretty certain that something can be done by an unexperienced researcher in short time. On the other hand just repeating the literature is boring for the student. One way to find good topics is to look at what is often referred to as folklore: Every textbook contains the theorem that X implies Y, and every expert knows that quasi-X already suffices, but noone bothered to write it up. This will most probably not be worth a publication, but proving a theorem not yet contained in the literature is motivating. Another simple method is looking at all the things you excluded from your own papers. If you worked out an example, but did not include it in a publication, you can let the student generalize it.

What you should not do is ask a student a problem you are really interested in. First the student will be frustrated, because the problem is too hard for him, then you will be frustrated, because you will spend much more time explaining things to him then you would need to find the results for yourself, and finally everyone is frustrated, because you find an answer and have to explain it to the student.

Answer 3

Yes, undergraduates frequently prove new things, in the sense that every year there are new, publishable results proved by undergraduates. So, although a relatively small number of undergraduate math students participate in true "research", there are certainly students who are able to make nontrivial discoveries as undergraduates, and more than one might initially think. I have been at prestigious research schools and at anti-prestigious regional universites in the U.S.A. At every school I have been, there were undergraduates in mathematics with the aptitude for publishable research. The talent needed may not be "common", but it is certainly not "rare". The obstacles are primarily cultural, not intellectual.

The topic of undergraduate research has also been the subject of a question on MathOverflow, which makes for good reading.

For an example from personal experience: I recently published a peer-reviewed paper in what I consider to be a high-quality journal (and which is not in any way a "student" journal), with an undergraduate student co-author, who discovered the proof of one of the main theorems on his own between two of our research meetings.

Another example is the journal Involve, which is devoted to genuine student research. From their self-description:

Involve showcases and encourages high-quality mathematical research involving students from all academic levels. The editorial board consists of mathematical scientists committed to nurturing student participation in research.

Submissions in all mathematical areas are encouraged. All manuscripts accepted for publication in Involve are considered publishable in quality journals in their respective fields, and include a minimum of one-third student authorship. Submissions should include substantial faculty input; faculty co-authorship is strongly encouraged. In most cases, the submission (and accompanying cover letter) should come from a faculty member.

Involve, bridging the gap between the extremes of purely undergraduate-research journals and mainstream research journals, provides a venue to mathematicians wishing to encourage the creative involvement of students.

One thing that undergraduates are unlikely to have is the breadth of knowledge that is expected for PhD recipients. Particularly in mathematics, PhD students are examined in a range of subjects, and are expected to have mastered large parts of the undergraduate curriculum. Undergraduate research often involves learning enough about one particular area to prove new theorems. The student still needs to spend time learning other areas to have the knowledge expected of a PhD.

The real key for undergraduates who are looking to do publishable research is to find a collaboration with a good faculty mentor. Independent research by undergraduates is indeed quite rare (in fact, the majority of mathematics papers currently published have two or more authors - even experts benefit from collaboration). The MathOverflow thread linked above has more advice from other mathematicians.

Answer 4

I can tell you my experience as I am currently writing an undergraduate thesis (though as a summer project).

I am an undergraduate student in mathematics currently doing a summer « introduction to research » internship. I'm studying probability theory.

As a first year student, about half of my time was spent solidifying my mathematical background in probability, measure theory and analysis. I also spent quite a lot of time studying specialised articles, and finally I applied the general theory I studied to a specific problem, where I did prove something « new », while very closely following other published results. On the way there, I also proved a few lemmas, that, while not of general interest, are « new » and interesting to me.

Clearly, undergraduate students are not expected to find groundbreaking results of general interest. However, they can contribute to mathematics by summarising and gathering related results from multiple articles, applying new theories, finding examples, etc.

A word of advice.

You should not aim for great discoveries, but rather simply try to do your own mathematics. Ask yourself a lot of « stupid » questions and find their answers. That's how you'll end up with a few small new results. Make sure you can grasp the big picture of your field of study, that you look at it from a critical standpoint and that you understand the issues that motivate it.

Do math undergraduates frequently prove new things?

Yes. But not great things, and sometimes things that might already be known to experts (but not widely accessible). I think that it is good enough for an undergrad to prove things that are new to him/her and her classmates/advisor/etc.

Answer 5

Some of the implicit premises of these sorts of questions, or the implicit premises in responses to the question, are really the issue. I would heartily agree that undergrads of all "calibers" should "be in the room" when something resembling "live" mathematics is being discussed. But/and this is most meaningful when we look at the falseness, artificiality, and sterility of the typical undergrad curriculum: it's fake and moribund, with no immediate room for anyone to do anything at all, and no hints about reality, either. Ghastly, yes. But that does not immediately entail a sort of "opposite", that novices need know very little to make meaningful contributions. Raw cleverness has already been exercised, quite systematically, for some hundreds of years (thousands?). People have learned useful things, and to not know these is to not know how to change a tire, or a light bulb, or a furnace filter, or open the door. Not that the usual curriculum helps much, either, I agree! But that does not mean that basic operational skills (involving occasionally subtle mathematics, literally, here) are irrelevant. Getting outside the degenerate "school math" thang is excellent... but thinking that that means "we don't need to know anything!" is obviously silly... even if appealing. "Complicated".