The intersection of CSC165 and MAT137

Vaguely this week, CSC165 and MAT137 have been indistinguishable in certain aspects.  On some days, when I'm drowsy enough, I would associate CSC165 more with math than computer science. The work load from these two courses have been themed around the same thing: symbolic math statements.  Reading symbolic math statements, understanding them, and converting english sentences to symbolic math statements.  Both course works have fed on each other, and helped in the general understanding of math's symbolic language.  For MAT137 problem set #1, we were asked to identify, from a list of choices, which one[s] are proper definitions of a periodic function, write out proofs using the toolbox of math symbols, and create sets of numbers that satisfy a statement.  For CSC165, we were asked to do negation, disjunction, conjunction, and truth table exercises.  These exercises require practicing math symbols, and both offer a different viewpoint in how to think about these math symbols, thus furthering the understanding of the course works and the symbolic math language.  For example, the upside-down "U" symbol used in math means the intersection of two numerical sets, but in computer science, it could be an intersection of two qualities, for example, 'red and Ferrari'.  Understanding the different usages of the same symbol allows me to expand my  horizon on how to be creative with the symbol and the meaning of the symbol itself.

Someone should really update the math calendar to say, recommended: CSC165.  

If, Then. God's existence, and vacuous truths.

           The first two weeks of CSC165 has been characterized by the encountering of problems in class whose solutions have been unexpected and “What?? How is that the solution?”  Recall the first lecture: {x for x in s if x>6}, a statement (or is it a sentence?) that translates to human language as, find value(s) in the set of s that is greater than 6.  The language of computer science, and mathematics, is a form of short-hand that is new and strange.  Times spent trying to decode what the question is trying to ask, only to give out an answer that is a result of misinterpreting the question.  *Sigh*.  Remembering all this, the one confusion that stands out from the others has got to be the “P=>Q” exercises in class.  Translated into the form ‘If P, then Q,’ things were getting tricky with some of the problems given by Larry.  “A student need[s] to get 40% on the final to pass CSC165,” Larry reads, “now, find p and q. “   I think many people were deliberating on this one.  Is it, “If 40%, then pass”, or is it, “If pass, then 40%”?  Both of these statements are evidently possible, yet there is only one right answer.   I was thinking of making a challenge, and surely many other people were as well, but luckily, I was spared the embarrassment of looking like an upstart, sitting next to someone who was conscientiously taking down notes.   From her, it was clarified that I can think of P=>Q as: Q is a requirement for P.  It was quite clear after that, I suppose.  40% is a requirement for passing csc165, therefore, P is passing csc165, and Q is 40%.  

The other thing that was perplexing, and still is, has got to be the vacuous truth statements, but elaborating on that would take up five paragraphs.  I would just like to say that I would definitely like to ask the math instructors whether the vacuous truth logic applies to the proof of God’s existence, because if so, I would like to hear an atheist’s response.  For now, I will just accept the vacuous truth, and conclude that the mathematics world is philosophical as well as logical.   

The past weeks I have learned that just because the class is at 6-9 does not mean I can just not pay attention to the information given by the slides in class.  Hopefully I have learned my lesson and shall endeavour to verify the statement, If P, then Q, where P is passing CSC165, and Q is getting 80% on the final.