Logic hates me
(disclaimer: this is a logic rant. It might not make sense.)
AAAARRRGGGG. So there are these four proofs that the prof told us to do way at the beginning of the current unit. They're interderivable (meaning they go both ways), so it's really 8 proofs. Well when she first told us to do them ,I couldn't figure them out. So... I didn't do them. And then she never did them in class. Well now the test for this unit is tomorrow and I thought I had a pretty good handle on things. So I'm going, ok, I should be able to do these proofs now, right?
NO. The two I couldn't do before, I STILL can't figure out. So, for the first time all semester, I get out my textbook to see if he proves them at some point. Well first of all, the dude talks like a logician. Honestly. Speak english when you're speaking english, not logickese (this is an actual term, fyi).
Then, he doesn't do the proofs in the direction I don't get (henceforth backwards). He only does them in the direction I get (henceforth forwards). So I go, ok, we're doing predicate logic now, obviously these proofs work in propositional logic too. So lets go see if he does these in the prop logic section.
Does he? Sure. He does them forwards. He puts the backwards proof IN THE EXERCISES. And the answers are NOT in the book.
THEN. In the pred logic section, when he does the proofs forwards, he USES the proof going backwards. So he CITES the proof that was IN THE EXERCISES. I'm going, you bastard! You didn't prove that! Nowhere in this book did you prove that! You can't use it! Not ok!
ARRRG. Now I've got such a headache. I wouldn't be so pissed off, except there actually is a strong chance that these two proofs could show up on the test tomorrow. They're like the DeMorgan laws (only proving interderivability between --> and & instead of & and v).
Eeralkjsdglhsgh. That's all I have to say now.
AAAARRRGGGG. So there are these four proofs that the prof told us to do way at the beginning of the current unit. They're interderivable (meaning they go both ways), so it's really 8 proofs. Well when she first told us to do them ,I couldn't figure them out. So... I didn't do them. And then she never did them in class. Well now the test for this unit is tomorrow and I thought I had a pretty good handle on things. So I'm going, ok, I should be able to do these proofs now, right?
NO. The two I couldn't do before, I STILL can't figure out. So, for the first time all semester, I get out my textbook to see if he proves them at some point. Well first of all, the dude talks like a logician. Honestly. Speak english when you're speaking english, not logickese (this is an actual term, fyi).
Then, he doesn't do the proofs in the direction I don't get (henceforth backwards). He only does them in the direction I get (henceforth forwards). So I go, ok, we're doing predicate logic now, obviously these proofs work in propositional logic too. So lets go see if he does these in the prop logic section.
Does he? Sure. He does them forwards. He puts the backwards proof IN THE EXERCISES. And the answers are NOT in the book.
THEN. In the pred logic section, when he does the proofs forwards, he USES the proof going backwards. So he CITES the proof that was IN THE EXERCISES. I'm going, you bastard! You didn't prove that! Nowhere in this book did you prove that! You can't use it! Not ok!
ARRRG. Now I've got such a headache. I wouldn't be so pissed off, except there actually is a strong chance that these two proofs could show up on the test tomorrow. They're like the DeMorgan laws (only proving interderivability between --> and & instead of & and v).
Eeralkjsdglhsgh. That's all I have to say now.