Hi everyone,
The review sheet for the final exam has been posted under Classroom Resources / Exam Reviews. As always, let me know in person, by email, or here on the OpenLab if you have any questions.
Regards,
Prof. Reitz
Month: December 2019
Written work (for practice only, will NOT be collected – instead, work on the final exam review sheet!):
Section 11.1 p182: 12, 13, 16
In addition, complete Example 11.8 at the top of p182.
Section 11.4: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
Handout: Theorem NT 6.2, 6.3
WeBWorK – none
OpenLab – none
Project Reflection due by final exam 12/19 (by email)
This assignment is the final deliverable for your project (worth 10 points). It is an individual, not a group, assignment and should be submitted by email, not on the OpenLab.
The Semester Project consisted of a number of related activities and assignments – before you begin writing, please take a look at the list and click each of the links to remind yourself of all the parts of the project.
Assignment (Due before your final exam – Thursday, December 19th). SUBMIT BY EMAIL, NOT ON THE OPENLAB. This is your chance to reflect on the Semester Project, and to describe your contributions to the major group activities. Please respond to all of the following.
Part 1 (200 words minimum). Write one or two paragraphs reflecting on the Semester Project, from the initial assignment (“OpenLab #5: Bridges and Walking Tours“) through to the final presentations. You can use the following questions to guide your writing if you wish (or you can respond in whatever way you wish):
- What was your overall impression of the project? What did you enjoy the most? Least?
- Do you feel that the project enhanced your experience of the class? Was the project related to the course material?
- How did you feel during the process? What was the best moment? The worst?
- Was the project scaffolded appropriately? Did you need more or different support for any of the assignments? Do you have any suggestions for making the project more effective?
Part 2. Describe your personal contributions to the final two major group assignments, the group paper and the group presentation. Do you think that you were an equal contributor in your group? Be as specific as you can.
Assignment (due Thursday, December 12). Imagine that you are invited to speak on the first day of MAT 2071, to give advice to entering students. Write at least three sentences responding to at least one of the following, describing what you would tell them.
- What do you wish that you had been told at the start of this class, to help you succeed?
- Choose one topic in the course that is especially challenging. Identify it, and give advice to students trying to master that topic.
- What is the most important prior knowledge (not taught in the class) that you need in order to succeed? Why is it important?
Extra Credit. Respond to someone else’s comment. Do you agree? disagree? Have anything to add?
Written work, due Tuesday, 12/10, in class:
Day 25 Handout: Theorems NT 5.2, 5.3
Section 11.0: 3,4
WeBWorK – Assignment 6 due Tuesday, 12/10
OpenLab – OpenLab #7: Advice for the Future due Thursday, 12/12
Project Deadlines:
Final Draft of paper due in class on Thursday 12/5.
Group Presentations on Thursday 12/5.
Logic on Math StackExchange
- Can the set of integers be constructed starting from Peano's Axioms without powersets? November 21, 2024I was able to formally construct the set of integers starting from Peano's Axioms using a powerset axiom among other ZF-like axioms (31 lines available here on request). Informally, I have: $\pm 0 = \{(0,~ 0),~ (1,~ 1),~ (2, 2), \cdots \}$ $+1 = \{(1,~ 0),~ (2,~ 1),~ (3, 2), \cdots \}$ $-1 = \{(0,~ […]Dan Christensen
- On the correct $(\forall)$-introduction rule in Natural Deduction November 21, 2024In a nutshell: is the following the $(\forall)$-introduction rule in Natural Deduction? $$\frac{\phi[t/x]}{\forall x\phi}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \begin{matrix}\text{provided the term $t$ does not occur in $\phi$}\\ \text{nor in any undischarged assumption in the proof of $\phi[t/x]$}\end{matrix} $$ I began learning about natural deduction from these notes where the $(\forall)$-introduction rule […]Sam
- Proving $\vdash \phi(x,y,\ldots,z)$ if and only if $\vdash\forall x\forall y\cdots\forall z\phi(x,y,\ldots,z)$ using Natural Deduction November 21, 2024I suspect the following holds: $$\vdash \phi(x,y,\ldots,z)\iff \vdash\forall x\forall y\cdots\forall z\phi(x,y,\ldots,z)$$ where $\phi$ is a formula with free variables $x,y,\ldots, z$. Here is my argument using Natural Deduction : $(\Rightarrow):$ $\vdash\phi(x,y,\ldots,z)$ means $\vdash\phi(x',y',\ldots,z')$ for new variables $x',y',\ldots,z'$. Now we may use $\forall$-introduction: $$\frac{\dfrac{\phi(x',y',\ldots,z')}{\forall x\phi(x,y',\ldots,z')}}{\dfrac{\vdots}{\forall x\forall y\cdots\forall z \phi(x,y,\ldots,z)}}$$ $(\Leftarrow):$ using $\forall$-elimination repeatedly: $$\frac{\dfrac{\forall x\forall y\cdots\forall […]Sam
- Is it actually possible to prove difficult propositional theorems without using inference? [closed] November 20, 2024For the theorem $(\phi\to\psi) \to \bigl((\phi\to\xi) \to (\phi\to\psi\land\xi)\bigr),$ I can fairly easily derive any proof using Deduction Theorem, but our professor says that we are allowed to use only the Hilbert/Frege axioms and modus ponens, but not assumptions, conditions, inferences, truth tables or substitutions. Is it actually possible to prove difficult propositional theorems without using […]Whatevur m8
- Why are the ZFC -axioms written like that? [closed] November 20, 2024Question 1: Why is the Axiom of Extensionability written as: $$\forall x \forall y(\forall z(z\in x \iff z\in y) \rightarrow x=y)$$ Doesn't this read: for all $x$ and $y$, $x = y$ if for all $z$, $z$ is a member of $x$ if and only if $z$ is a member of $y$? Isn't this $$\forall […]DefinitelyNotADolphin
- Complete a natural deduction in FOL for this statement: ∃y∀xA(x,y) ⊢ ∀x∃yA(x,y) [closed] November 20, 2024I need help solving this FOL proof. I believe it needs to use change of quantifier rules, but I am having a lot of trouble.Paloma Bushofsky
- Help proving the $(\forall)$-introduction rule written in terms of $\exists$ in natural deduction November 20, 2024I'm trying to prove the $(\forall)$-introduction rule in Natural Deduction (written in terms of $\exists$): $$\frac{\phi [t/x]}{\neg\exists x\neg\phi} \ \ \ \ \begin{matrix}\text{ given that $t$ does not appear in $\phi$ nor in any}\\ \text{ undischarged assumption in the proof of $\phi[t/x]$}\end{matrix}$$ I believe the proof should go something like so: $1.\ \phi[t/x]$ $2.\ \exists […]Sam
- Proof of Deduction Theorem in Hilbert‘s system/calculus November 20, 2024Deduction Theorem: Let $\Sigma$ be an axiom system and $\psi, \varphi$ $L$-formulas. Then the following always holds: $\Sigma, \psi \vdash \varphi \iff \Sigma \vdash \psi \rightarrow \varphi$. “$\Rightarrow$” We prove this direction using mathematical induction on the length of a proof, $n \geq 1$ ($n \in \mathbb{N}$, which justifies the use of math. induction). Base […]Pippen
- Why do we ban renaming of free variables? November 20, 2024I have read this Q&A, but it didn't completely clear up my confusion. It is about substitution and not renaming. I agree with that substitution cannot be allowed freely, because it would allow for situations where the meaning is changed. The same is true for renaming, but just like with substitution, renaming can be allowed […]user110391
- How do you solve the analogy 369 : 329 :: 237 :? [closed] November 20, 2024I came across the following analogy and I’m having trouble identifying the pattern: 369 : 329 :: 237 : ? I’ve noticed that the numbers on the left and right side of the colon appear to be related, and I need help figuring out the logic or pattern that connects them. What I've tried: I […]randomuser
Recent Comments