Okay. Logic final today.
Jun. 13th, 2005 07:42 amUsually I go into finals relatively confident of the results.
Not so this time. I have my Logic final this afternoon at 2. I've busted my tail studying this weekend, working through 67 proofs. I was stuck on 6 of them, but I've solved most of those now.
Patterns:
- I have a tendency to write the equation down wrong. I've got to slow down. If I check off the terms I use as I go (like I'm supposed to) the solution becomes more apparent.
- "Provided that" = P provided that C = the second term is the s.c. = C > P, i.e., translated "P is true if C."
- "Entails" = P entails C = the first term is the s.c. = P > C, i.e., translated "P is true only if C" or "P requires C."
- I tend to miss potential disjunctive syllogisms, and run for distribution and DeMorgan's as a cure-all. If there is a negation, look for the disjunct.
- I do not know how to formulate a Conditional Proof inside or as a subset of an Indirect Proof. I'm not sure if that's even legal.
- If your proof isn't working, force it. Sometimes you don't need to solve the premises just to get a solution. Build a term from scratch to break out your modus ponens, or just create a contradiction by adding what you need. You've got ~Q in the Indirect Proof? Add Q. Distribute, run DeMorgan's Crank, Simplify -- bingo.
- I think I've broken the habit of expection the solution to be apparent in the premises. I think.
- I think I've broken the habit of not getting as much as I can out of the equation before reaching for Conditional Proofs.
- I just know she's going to put both hypothetical syllogisms and at least one constructive dilemma into these proofs on the test, especially that latter.
wildernessguru teased me last night, because I looked... concerned... as I crawled into bed: "What's wrong, honey?"
"Worried about my final tomorrow."
He laughed, "The dedicated student. I thought it was something serious."
ETA: The good news is the Geology extra credit is done and emailed. If I don't have a 4.0 in that class I'll eat my Logic textbook.
The other news: extremely tough Philosophy final at 10:30 Wednesday morning. Be able to write up a paragraph each on 16 different Philosophical views on The Problem and Implications of Evil, Religion and Ethics, Religious Philosophical Pluralism, and Debunking Religion.
Not so this time. I have my Logic final this afternoon at 2. I've busted my tail studying this weekend, working through 67 proofs. I was stuck on 6 of them, but I've solved most of those now.
Patterns:
- I have a tendency to write the equation down wrong. I've got to slow down. If I check off the terms I use as I go (like I'm supposed to) the solution becomes more apparent.
- "Provided that" = P provided that C = the second term is the s.c. = C > P, i.e., translated "P is true if C."
- "Entails" = P entails C = the first term is the s.c. = P > C, i.e., translated "P is true only if C" or "P requires C."
- I tend to miss potential disjunctive syllogisms, and run for distribution and DeMorgan's as a cure-all. If there is a negation, look for the disjunct.
- I do not know how to formulate a Conditional Proof inside or as a subset of an Indirect Proof. I'm not sure if that's even legal.
- If your proof isn't working, force it. Sometimes you don't need to solve the premises just to get a solution. Build a term from scratch to break out your modus ponens, or just create a contradiction by adding what you need. You've got ~Q in the Indirect Proof? Add Q. Distribute, run DeMorgan's Crank, Simplify -- bingo.
- I think I've broken the habit of expection the solution to be apparent in the premises. I think.
- I think I've broken the habit of not getting as much as I can out of the equation before reaching for Conditional Proofs.
- I just know she's going to put both hypothetical syllogisms and at least one constructive dilemma into these proofs on the test, especially that latter.
"Worried about my final tomorrow."
He laughed, "The dedicated student. I thought it was something serious."
ETA: The good news is the Geology extra credit is done and emailed. If I don't have a 4.0 in that class I'll eat my Logic textbook.
The other news: extremely tough Philosophy final at 10:30 Wednesday morning. Be able to write up a paragraph each on 16 different Philosophical views on The Problem and Implications of Evil, Religion and Ethics, Religious Philosophical Pluralism, and Debunking Religion.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 03:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 04:54 pm (UTC)Barring that, I'm sending you a cosmic shot of whisky.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 10:08 pm (UTC)Good luck!