Jan 31 Week 3

Not much to say during this week , rather than 3 upcoming test and 1 essay due all in NEXT WEEK!!!

little bit more about finding the negation or equivalent from statement and treat implication as disjunctions. it seems like better convert statements into symbolic form , then work these symbolic form as maths operator  which now can be easily solved.

Key note:

A => B  <=> \not A \or B  

Jan 23 week 2

Week 2 ( more quantifier , symbol , implication )

during this week , we learn more about symbol , implication  and how to convert "english sentence" into symbolic form , so we can evaluate to true or false. These kind of logic question are new and interesting for me. First, I was kinda struggling on the questions until during the tutorial we do more practice and develop more understanding how to deal with these type of question. It is kinda fascinating how there is a alternative solution to a question which state exactly the same idea especially when I can't even  find one solution. O.o

Key note : 

Implication : If P => then Q   ( sometimes , it can go both way )

    P  = antecedent

    Q = consequent    * (sometime , even the implication is true , it doesn't give you causality )

A "and“ B （A ∧ B） =  only be true when both A and B are both true

A "or" B (A ∨ B) = can be true if A or B is true. 
negation = ﹁ , toggle the true value of a statement/

Jan 16 week 1

week 1  (quantifier)
all class material was reasonably easy to digest since it is the beginning of the course , however during the first tutorial we have huge argument with TA's solution on question 2 part D (false). Although TA's solution was correct , but some of  the students questioning that there should be more than one solution (i'm one of them) , after long discussion we decided save the question and post on the PIAZZA.

Key notes of the week :

To prove universal claim , we have to check every single element pass the test and shows there is no counter-example.

To disapprove  universal claim , we only need to find one counter-example.

To prove existential claim , find at least one example.

To disapprove existential claim , check every element , show there is  no example