Tag Archives: proofs


So we had a study session for Proofs today.

I use the phrase “study session” very loosely because we were all so stressed that we were just being off-topic as hell.

Things we talked about:

  • Our favorite books
  • Dante’s Inferno
  • The levels of hell
  • Getting masticated by the devil and how awesome that would be
  • Getting masticated in general
  • Doing the “getting masticated by the devil” interpretive dance
  • How “do an interpretive dance of getting masticated by the devil” would be fantastic extra credit on the final
  • How someone with parasigmatism would ever tell anybody they had it
  • “I’m not happy until I’ve been groped!”
  • Our favorite words
  • Trying to figure out what de-masticating would entail
  • Doing the “de-mastication” interpretive dance
  • How much better our final would be if we could just do interpretive dances of our proofs
  • How much better our final would be if we could just sing and/or play an instrument depicting our proofs
  • Plans to bring clarinets/saxophones/cellos/guitars/pianos to our final and just play Christmas music instead
  • The clarinet vs. saxophone debate
  • How sexy Word 2013 is
  • The meanings of our first names
  • Making fun of the meanings of each other’s first names
  • Making fun of each other’s majors (we’re a mix of math, physics, math ed., and engineering)
  • Making fun of each other in general

Things we didn’t talk about:

  • How to do proofs

Yes, our professor was there, too. I think he was just as burnt out as we all were; he was just laughing along with us (and telling the majority of the really dumb math jokes).

I’m going to freaking miss these dork bombs.

If Godot falls in the forest and no one is around…

I took my Symbolic Logic test today. The first three pages were fine, just translations, truth tables, DeMorgan’s Laws, and a proof step proof (no subproofs). I finished in 15 minutes.

Then there were the proof method proofs (aka proofs with subproofs embedded).

There were four on the test; we had to choose two and prove them. I proved one relatively quickly (because it was essentially the definition of a biconditional), but then I literally sat there for 45 minutes just staring the other three down, racking my brain to try to figure out whether or not I could figure out how to prove one.


Finally, the lightbulb came on with one and I crapped out a proof in under 10 minutes (not easy, trust me).

So I got home and tried plugging my solution into Fitch, and if I did it the way I think I did on the test, I got that one right.



Yay? Maybe? I hope I did okay.