Cambridge eventually decided it was a bit much, and, led by the mathematician G.H. Hardy (who, I should note, was Fourth Wrangler in his year...) reformed the system to make it less competitive.

More history:
www.maths.cam.ac.uk/about/history
www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-...

It was, as you might expect, quite competitive. C.T. Simpson (Second Wrangler, 1842) apparently took a stimulant (ether) to endure 20-hour study sessions. And James Savage studied so hard he was found dead of apoplexy a few months after being named Senior Wrangler in 1859.

(Many famous names didn't make the list – J.J. Thomson famously sent his servant to ask who came second, only to learn it was himself.)

Before 1909 reforms, the examination was a bit of a national spectacle, with substantial betting taking place on the outcome.

Philippa Fawcett came first in 1890, a full 13% above second place, but since women were not yet awarded degrees until 1948, she was given the title "above the Senior Wrangler." Today, the Maths HPC cluster is named after her.

Wikipedia has a list of all Senior Wranglers going back to 1748 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_...). The list has some recognizable names in science – Herschel, Stokes, Rayleigh, Eddington, etc., along with some interesting ones, like Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong!

When Maths became the first subject to institute written examinations, it kept the name. The top-ranked students are (still) named "Wranglers," and the top scorer overall is named the "Senior Wrangler," then the "Second Wrangler," and so on.

These ones are the XREAL One. I quite like them though haven't tried others to compare. These have no 3D, no bluetooth, no battery, you just plug it in your laptop as an external monitor on your face. Works brilliantly for this, its like a hovering external monitor for your laptop

That makes sense!

I've had a few people ask for this and am considering it. For now, though, you could implement this constraint manually with the following custom loss function: gist.github.com/MilesCranmer.... Pass it as a string to `loss_function_expression`.

(Let me know if this doesn't work!)

By the way, just curious, is that `complexity_of_variables` supposed to be `complexity_of_constants`? I only ask because usually in the pysr forums people are looking to minimize the # of constants rather than # of variables

This looks pretty good to me! Do try out parallelism=:multiprocessing and let me know if that helps. For whatever reason its better at getting better CPU utilization, though it takes longer to start up every time you launch a new search.

(Likely small, but could try larger `population_size`)

I haven’t done a detailed study myself but it would be cool to see! I can try to ask them what they settled on.

Interesting! Do you remember what hyperparameters were used? It might be there weren’t enough populations to use all cores? (Also you could try parallelism=:multiprocessing)