Week 6: Thanksgiving and the Introduction to MORE Proofs!

Hey guys, as promised this is Kyle checking in to bring you the weekly report on week 6 that I should have gave you last week. Once again I deeply apologize for not being able to deliver last week, things got pretty busy and I just couldn't find the time. So, without further ado, let's get started with this week's roundup.

So during week 6 we went over more methods of proving as well as different kinds of proofs. We started off with learning how to write proofs of non-boolean functions, meaning that the function does not return true or false. Instead, the function might return something like a number. We used the floor of x example to illustrate this concept. Since the floor of x function and proofs using that function is something that will come up often in assignment 2, I need to review the key points of the function in order to be able to accurately write the proofs for the statements in assignment 2. Also, learning to write these codes may help me write the proofs faster and more efficiently. So after going over the floor of x function we moved on to learning how to prove something false, which came as no surprise since we only had learned how to prove statements true before. It turns out that proving a statement false is simply negating the statement, and proving the negation true. I had no problem understanding this concept. The only thing of concern was probably figuring out when I needed to prove a statement false. But, as professor Heap said, you only need to concern yourself with proving statement false when you are 100% sure that it isn't true. How to do that is by trying to prove the original statement. After learning about disproving false statements we then wrapped up the week with learning about proof by cases, proof about limits, and being careful about negating statements. Overall, this week was a relatively easy one to understand, except maybe for proof about limits. which I need to review.

So guys, comment below, how did you find this week 6's material? Were the proofs easy to understand? Let me know. Also, keep a look out for my mathematical workings for the penny piles problem covered in week 7. Hope you guys enjoyed this blog, and as always, words are hard, comp-sci is awesome, and later days.

Week 7: Inferences and Sorting Strategies

What's up everyone this is Kyle checking in to bring you a week 7 report on the happenings of CSC 165. You may have noticed that there was no blog post for week 6, I deeply apologize for that. That week was quite heavy with work as I had a calculus mid-term as well as an essay to submit so I did not have too much time on my hands. So, to make it up to you guys I'm going to be doing a double header today, posting up a blog for week 6 and week 7. Now that formalities are out of the way, let's get started with the weekly roundup.

This week we started off by reviewing the methods in disproving false statements. However, it did not have to do with how to disprove false statements. Rather, we learned the dangers of proving a claim false. The main risk had to do with incorrectly negating a statement in order to prove the negation of a false claim. After that, we moved on to talking about the allowed inferences of proofs. All the inferences involved concepts we explicitly learned in week 6 such as proof rules for universal and existential claims, implications, and so on and so forth, so it was not hard to wrap my head around. On Wednesday, we started going over sorting strategies, and all the different kinds of sorting strategies. We discussed which strategies were the best in terms of complexity, time to sort, and the number of steps it takes to sort. I was able to understand the examples  Finally, we ended the week with a nice problem solving exercise. I think I'll detail that problem in a separate blog post very soon. Anyways, this week was a relatively easy week in terms of concepts, I was able to solve the first part in a relatively short time while working within a group. The second part I was able to figure out on my own through rigorous testing of all possible values. I have yet to tackle the third part as we had run out of time by the time I reached that problem. In terms of the steps that I took to understand this week's concepts, all I really had to do to fully understand the concepts of proofs and inferences were to just practice them. All this information will definitely help me complete assignment two.

Well that wraps up this week 7 report, I hope you guys enjoyed listening to my weekly story, and I want to hear from you. What approaches did you all have to fully understand the concepts of this week's lectures? Were you able to solve all the problems during our exercise? Let me know in the comments below. As always, words are hard, comp-sci is awesome, and later days. This is Kyle Mendoza signing out.

CSC165 Week 5: Proof Structures and the Term Test Oh Yes

Hey everybody, this is your man Kyle here checking in to give you guys a week 5 report on what has been happening in the CSC 165 course. Sorry that this is coming up a bit late but with all everything that has been going on I haven't exactly had the time to post. Anyway, this week we started going over proofs, and the differences between the proof structures of a universal claim and an existential claim. For universal claims, I found that we had to assume a lot of aspects of a statement in order to form a proper proof. For example, we had to assume that all elements were part of a particular set, and, if there was an implication involved, that the antecedent was true (otherwise we would get a free proof due to vacuous truth). Also we could be very general and ambiguous with the examples we provided for our proofs since we were trying to prove a statement that applies to all elements of a set. For existential claims I found that we had to be much more specific and precise, explicitly naming a value that would correspond to an element and going through how that value would make the entire claim true. This was necessary since for an existential claim, it is only necessary to verify one example for the claim to be verified. In general this week's concepts was a lot easier for me to digest and learn immediately and I did not find myself needing to have to repeatedly look over the course notes in order to fully understand the concepts. I was able to understand what was being taught in a short amount of time and I was proud of that. In the middle of all of this we had our term test for this class, I found it rather easy and that it involved a lot of common sense, which, thank goodness, I had that day. The time we had to complete the test was adequate and I felt it was a good introduction to test taking at the university level.

Well that's it for this week's report friends, hope you enjoyed reading about my trials and tribulations and stay tuned for more. How was the term test for you guys? Did you find proof structures relatively simple to learn? Comment below what you guys think. Words are hard, comp-sci is awesome, and later days. This is Kyle Mendoza signing out.