Interesting - this is exactly the kind of answer I'm looking to learn from. Are these really so utterly fundamental that someone could do them under pressure without thinking?
Is it the case that someone who can't answer these near automatically is, in effect, incompetent (in this field)?
I'm wondering if you've set the bar higher than FizzBuzz is in computing, or if this really is equivalent.
I would agree with the op here. SVD in particular is so fundamental to the idea of data analysis I couldn't imagine talking to someone who even flinched at hearing it. Most other things fit at roughly the same level in my mind.
I feel like the mechanics of test selection biases against people who've specialized in Bayesian stuff—which might be very interesting! It's definitely a make-or-break kind of thing as to whether you can correctly formulate all the various moving parts and relate them correctly.
For this list, I'm basically assuming that I'm interviewing a candidate for a Ph.D. level (or equivalent) numerical analyst R&D type position. If they don't feel comfortable discussing the basics of these items, then they probably can't do too much more for us than algorithm plug&chug. Which has its value, but not what I had in mind.
That said, I also wouldn't expect someone to write out implementations on a whiteboard under pressure (I'm not a Google recruiter). I'd be more interested in prodding their brain to gauge their general level of understanding, which is (I'm pretty sure) how hiring committees for mathematicians in academia operate. If they have a good foundation, I think it's less important that they've rote memorized implementation details.
Is it the case that someone who can't answer these near automatically is, in effect, incompetent (in this field)?
I'm wondering if you've set the bar higher than FizzBuzz is in computing, or if this really is equivalent.
Thanks!