It's been a couple of years since I last took CSC 165, and unfortunately this course looks like it is heavily dependent upon it. Thankfully, I began refreshing material, as well as looking at the past year's version of CSC 236 during the summer and I believe I am ready for this course. I remember doing induction in high school, but of course the problems were nowhere near this level. The preliminaries section at the beginning of the course notes helps immensely in learning and refreshing the basics of the set theory used in this course. Many of the terms such as superset, proper superset/subset, and intensional/extensional I had never heard before.
So far, after week 1 and 2, we have gotten nearly through the first chapter on induction. I feel as though we've gone through a lot material in the first 2 weeks, but I guess that might be expected from such a demanding course. I'm currently at the point where I have a decent grasp of simple induction, and am currently getting a better understanding of complete induction, as well as its differences from simple induction. I'm still a little unsure of when to use base cases (and how many), and when not to. I think I will have a better understanding after problem set 2 and assignment 1. I've started assignment 1, and have a pretty good idea of how to go about the first 3 questions. To be honest, I'm finding it pretty easy, and am hoping that it will be enough to prepare everyone for the first test. I will probably go to the help center or one of the office hours just to make sure that I'm on the right track. There are also a few problems in the course notes that I'm unsure of why they took the approach they did.
2 comments:
I don't think the course is going to speed up that much (but I've got a strange perspective).
I often read other people's proofs and wonder why they approached things that way. The only way to deal with the irritation is to try to write the proof my own way.
Yeah, I'm now finding that there are different approaches that can be taken for a single proof. I suppose that the aim should be to make the proof understandable, rather than try to fit into a specific structure.
Post a Comment