I need to show my devotion to the beverage that has gotten me this far.
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Wednesday, 8 October 2014
I Did The Thing
I won't be coy. I am more than happy with the content of the first mid-term. There seemed to me to be no requirement for any transformational laws, or even basic algebra (that will be the end of me in this course, guaranteed).
The questions on the test seemed pretty straight forward though and didn't appear too tricky, although I will admit that I tripped over myself with negations a couple times ("Is 'not any' the same as none, or 'all-not'? Is 'all-not' even a thing? Pretty sure...").
Maybe I also negated "m x n = q" incorrectly.
The fact of the matter is that things seemed straight forward enough to not warrant need of an aid-sheet. Aid sheets are not comforting. All it really means when a prof allows an aid sheet is:
"GO ON. WRITE ANYTHING YOU WANT ON THIS PAPER. NOTHING YOU WRITE CAN HELP YOU NOW."
Either way though, I didn't use an aid sheet...
Because I didn't have an aid sheet...
Because I totally didn't realise that the term test was today.
I thought that the test was on Friday, so I got to be the rube that walked into MP203 at noon thinking, "Hey, where is everybody?"
I checked the course website...and I started running.
I did not study...
I prepared no aid sheet...
I was 12 minutes late...
If I manage to pass this test, anybody who doesn't has no excuse.
Except if their dog just died...
Or they have a terminal illness...
The questions on the test seemed pretty straight forward though and didn't appear too tricky, although I will admit that I tripped over myself with negations a couple times ("Is 'not any' the same as none, or 'all-not'? Is 'all-not' even a thing? Pretty sure...").
Maybe I also negated "m x n = q" incorrectly.
The fact of the matter is that things seemed straight forward enough to not warrant need of an aid-sheet. Aid sheets are not comforting. All it really means when a prof allows an aid sheet is:
"GO ON. WRITE ANYTHING YOU WANT ON THIS PAPER. NOTHING YOU WRITE CAN HELP YOU NOW."
Either way though, I didn't use an aid sheet...
Because I didn't have an aid sheet...
Because I totally didn't realise that the term test was today.
I thought that the test was on Friday, so I got to be the rube that walked into MP203 at noon thinking, "Hey, where is everybody?"
I checked the course website...and I started running.
I did not study...
I prepared no aid sheet...
I was 12 minutes late...
If I manage to pass this test, anybody who doesn't has no excuse.
Except if their dog just died...
Or they have a terminal illness...
Sunday, 5 October 2014
"Assignments make an ass out of gnments and I"
It's rather obvious that I neglected this Slog for a couple weeks, in no small part due to the presence of assignment 1.
To be fair, I find most of the difficulties in logic assignments are the interpretation of the questions.
Am I logic-ing in the way that they want me to?
If I try hard enough, can I make a true implication using nothing but empty sets?
If I slap together enough conjunctions and quantifiers, I'm pretty sure I can pretend I made a uniqueness quantifier.
I'm going to state a non-existence and then predicate a relationship between something and this nothingness no represent a lack of relationship between two things. Yes, that is reasonable.
How do you even catheterize an acronym anyway? It sounds uncomfortable for the both of us.
At very least, I'm seeing some familiar faces from my brief time in PHL245. DeMorgan's law was familiar, although it was taught a lot later in the course, and we had to prove it's logical legitimacy before we were allowed to use it for derivations. It seemed like a pretty big, difficult thing at the time, so much so that I had absolutely no idea how it worked. Now I'm familiar with using it, but I can't help but feel like I only got comfortable with a lot of the transformational rules and what-not because they were mentioned to us with the hum-drum, side-glace of attention. Maybe because in this context, negation seems a lot more like an algebraic property and less like a meaningful proposition the way it feels like in Philosophy sometimes.
Either way, we start proofs soon, and true to this SLOG's theme, I have no idea what's going on. Really. I haven't done math in AGES. This is gonna be a disaster.
To be fair, I find most of the difficulties in logic assignments are the interpretation of the questions.
Am I logic-ing in the way that they want me to?
If I try hard enough, can I make a true implication using nothing but empty sets?
If I slap together enough conjunctions and quantifiers, I'm pretty sure I can pretend I made a uniqueness quantifier.
I'm going to state a non-existence and then predicate a relationship between something and this nothingness no represent a lack of relationship between two things. Yes, that is reasonable.
How do you even catheterize an acronym anyway? It sounds uncomfortable for the both of us.
At very least, I'm seeing some familiar faces from my brief time in PHL245. DeMorgan's law was familiar, although it was taught a lot later in the course, and we had to prove it's logical legitimacy before we were allowed to use it for derivations. It seemed like a pretty big, difficult thing at the time, so much so that I had absolutely no idea how it worked. Now I'm familiar with using it, but I can't help but feel like I only got comfortable with a lot of the transformational rules and what-not because they were mentioned to us with the hum-drum, side-glace of attention. Maybe because in this context, negation seems a lot more like an algebraic property and less like a meaningful proposition the way it feels like in Philosophy sometimes.
Either way, we start proofs soon, and true to this SLOG's theme, I have no idea what's going on. Really. I haven't done math in AGES. This is gonna be a disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)