Tag Archives: proofs

Haha

By Claudia on | 2 Comments

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
  • REALLY DUMB MATH JOKES
  • “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.

Posted in: School | Tagged: , , ,

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

By Claudia on | Leave a comment

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.

 

Observe:

Yay? Maybe? I hope I did okay.

Posted in: School | Tagged: , , ,