You should re-read the stuff you think you know.

I started my PhD in June 2011. While I've only worked on a few problems since then, a pattern is emerging: I always spend a couple months stuck on something that looks obvious and silly (both in fore- and hindsight.) Most recently I was stuck on a problem involving basic arithmetic over finite fields. I felt that it was something I should be able to do, but nonetheless was stuck on it for a few weeks.

Maybe it's that I'm doing the PhD thing wrongly, or maybe it's that I'm not spending enough time on my mathematics (I've got a job doing predictive modeling, too!). In any case, the story of how I got unstuck might interest some people:

I've thought it important to continue doing maths reading independent of my research projects. But while there are several subjects I wish to learn about (and do research in), I have not engaged in much outside study. When I approach a subject, I have two separate reactions: Either I find that the subject is too advanced, and I give up quite early - not wanting to get lost in background material. Or I think the material I have repeats too much of stuff I already know, and I give up - not wanting to waste my time on things I've seen before.

After doing this for a few months, I decided that I should read something that I think I already know - just to get in the habit of things. I started reading the field/Galois theory chapters in the abstract algebra book by Dummit and Foote. Pretty light reading as far as mathematics goes. It's stuff I should know.

Those chapters contain some straightforward proofs of basic statements on algebraic field extensions. Exempli gratia, if $\mu$ is the root of a polynomial $f$, and $\sigma$ is an element of the Galois group, then one can prove that $\sigma(\mu)$ is also a root of the polynomial by observing the action of $\sigma$ on the polynomial $f$. Not particularly new or deep material, but it turns out just the stuff I needed...

Now back to my problems with arithmetic over finite fields: I've spent the last few weeks trying to decompose an operator on polynomials into separate components. My supervisor and I both had our own ideas of writing out matrices for these operators. I spent a few late nights on it, wrote down some messy results, and went to bed hoping I'd have an epiphany on how to clean it up. I had been hoping for one for weeks! But soon after I started re-reading the basics I got it. I was just reading about applying the action of the Galois group to polynomials, and here I was staring at an operator on polynomials. So I abandoned the ``matrix approach'', naively started looking at the action of the Galois group, and a few minutes later I had the result I was looking for. It seemed so obvious in hindsight, but it often seems obvious only after you've understood it.

I should probably keep reading the basics.