Okay. Logic final today.
Jun. 13th, 2005 07:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Usually 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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
"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!