Oct 19th -25th

Another week has been passed.This week, we summarized inference that could be used when dealing with proofs. And more, we learnt some sorting methods. It to some extend makes me more comfortable because the example is written in Python language and that makes it easier for me to read(compare with the multiple quantifiers of proving we learnt last week). But it makes me difficult to understand why is there a lower boundary and upper boundary. It just so weird that I think the worst case should be a certain number of steps. I talked to professor and he explained, but I did not quite get what he said. He said 'In those worst cases, there are some cases that would take some more steps than others, and we can find a case that all worst cases takes no more than this steps. This is upper boundary.' I just want to ask why(TAT).

And on Friday, we did problem-solving handout. It is interesting. But I had a question about problem-solving. Is it some kind of skills that we need to understand? Will same kind of questions on the Test paper? Or is it just to help us develop a scientific thinking?

Oct12 -18

This Monday is Thanksgiving day! We had a one-day holiday, which is good for all of us. Also, the test score of last week's test is available and that kind of makes me panic. Fortunately, it is not very bad and I am satisfied by my results.

This week, we learnt more about proofs.We learnt proving by cases, which is the most complicated method, I think. However, as I learnt more about proofs, I can feel it interesting more. And I do think proving is a very basic and useful skills that is used in lots of discipline such as computer science and mathematics. And I can feel we learnt deeper now about proving, because there are more quantifiers and become more complicated. But I think it will be fine if practicing a lot.

I am a little confused about limits. Because it is not written in the mathematical formula and sometimes I just have difficulty to translate those logical symbols into English and sometimes it drives me mad and anxious. And some words such as there exist a element ..., for all elements...,there exist a element...,for all elements,.... It just makes me feel difficult to understand when there are so many quantifiers existing.

Oct 5th - Oct11th

This week we had a Term 1 in csc165, which covers what we learnt in past 4 weeks. It is quite a tricky test. Fortunately, we had a past paper example and they are very similar. I felt I did mostly right but I am not sure. I hope I could get a satisfying score.

In this week's lecture, we learnt some proving skills. We  learnt how to prove existential quantifier and universal quantifier. And we learnt the format of doing so. It is quite a busy and enriched week. A lot of readings, a lot of tests and a lot of past papers.

Week Sep28 - Oct4

    This week we learnt implication can be written in disjunction form according to implication law, and did some exercises on mixed quantifiers and began learning proof on friday's lecture. What I felt interesting is the implication rule and DeMorgan's law. Implication law says P => Q is equivalent to (not P) or Q. I thought about the relation between these two for a while and found if we say P => Q, we can say P is a subset of Q, but (not P) or Q doesn't mean the same thing, if we draw a Venn Diagram, we can see clearly the difference between these two. And distributive law, in Venn Diagram, P or (Q and R) is the same as (P or Q) and (P or R), but in real life, when we say Q and R, we can treat Q and R as a whole, let's say,T, so it is same to P or T, how can we say that P or (Q and R) is the same to (P or Q) and (P or R)?

   That was just my few thoughts about last week's lecture contents, I found it becomes more difficult but I will work harder.