2014年12月1日星期一
2014年9月19日星期五
This is my first week with csc165 and I'm really excited about that.
This whole week was about set and implications. We learned how to solve an problem using sets and dug deeper in the relationship of antecedent and consequent. As I've learned something about those sets and implications before in high school but not in the English version so these thing are kind of new to me.
What impressed me most this week is the Vacuous truth. For all x in R, x^2 - 2x + 2 = 0 => x > x + 5
As there is no counterexamples can be found about the antecedent, so this implication is true. That is because the collection of all the x which makes the antecedent true is an empty set, and so is the consequent. Empty set is a subset of every set, that is to say empty set is a subset of an empty set, which is why this implication is true. And somebody asked what if it changed into some x in R, which id also true as there is no x that can make the equation true. I enjoy the brainstorming in the class.
We also did a transition of English to math, "require", "unless" and "only if" were kind of hard, but luckily Mr. Heap told us a key tool, which is: "if you know there are two parts, but wonder which is the antecedent and which is consequence, negate!"
In the first week, things were not so hard and the quiz in the tutorial was not hard either. I think I did well in the first week and I hope I can do well in the following weeks, too.
This whole week was about set and implications. We learned how to solve an problem using sets and dug deeper in the relationship of antecedent and consequent. As I've learned something about those sets and implications before in high school but not in the English version so these thing are kind of new to me.
What impressed me most this week is the Vacuous truth. For all x in R, x^2 - 2x + 2 = 0 => x > x + 5
As there is no counterexamples can be found about the antecedent, so this implication is true. That is because the collection of all the x which makes the antecedent true is an empty set, and so is the consequent. Empty set is a subset of every set, that is to say empty set is a subset of an empty set, which is why this implication is true. And somebody asked what if it changed into some x in R, which id also true as there is no x that can make the equation true. I enjoy the brainstorming in the class.
We also did a transition of English to math, "require", "unless" and "only if" were kind of hard, but luckily Mr. Heap told us a key tool, which is: "if you know there are two parts, but wonder which is the antecedent and which is consequence, negate!"
In the first week, things were not so hard and the quiz in the tutorial was not hard either. I think I did well in the first week and I hope I can do well in the following weeks, too.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)