This week I went to a seminar put on by the math department on campus. A graduate student presented his research in finding a faster algorithm for calculating persistent homology. Persistent homology is an algebraic method for measuring topological surfaces represented by a cloud of points. The student claimed that in testing his algorithm beat the standard algorithm’s speed by 116 times and the current fastest method by 10 times. He accomplished this by greatly reducing the number of comparisons that are made and by reducing the amount of data that needs to be moved. From what I understood, the data points are put into a matrix and each column is gone through sequentially and is analyzed. I did not understand the exact reasoning and methodology of how his proof but he found some way to predict the size of each column each column and row and some way to predict what was in other columns. He also did this using read only operations, which are much faster than writing. I went to the seminar alone, and I think I was the only undergraduate student in the room. The presenter frequently pointed out certain aspects of his approach that he said should be obvious to everyone in the room even though I didn’t understand at all. I was expecting to feel discouraged by this, but I didn’t. It was clear that everyone else in the room has had so much more education than me that I was proud at how much I did understand. I was proud of myself for making the attempt to learn something so challenging. I knew that asking every question I had would completely out of place since everyone else’s questions were even more confusing than the presentation, so I didn’t talk to anyone. Even though I didn’t follow the presentation very well, I know that it was my education that was holding me back, so I felt like I could do the same kind of research with more background in computer science and math. The student’s proofs weren’t overly complicated, only a couple steps each. I know that I would also be able to do the same kind of work in the future. Overall, the seminar was very similar to what I expected. I already knew what to expect from graduate computer research because my dad is an algorithm researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. I’ve always liked to hear his explanations of the problems that he is working on and I think I usually understand a similar percent of the problem. I usually understand the abstract question but all of the math and work goes way over my head, only understanding bits and pieces. I like the idea of contributing to academic knowledge though. I want to do original work, not just repeat what others have already done. I would like to publish research of my own as an undergraduate. I would also love to publish work with my dad. It’s a dream of his, and I think it would be super fun.
