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.
No comments:
Post a Comment