Redemption

Proofs. It's an interesting topic to learn but putting into practice is a challenge. Writing the structure is the simplest step but the actual proof where manipulation, definition takes place is a tricky step to perform. Writing the assumptions and the conclusions do make the proof look like an actual proof instead of just random rambling on a statement and just providing examples. It is unfortunate that I had never been introduced to proofs in high school so having no experience to do proofs is very tricky at this part of the curriculum. It seems somewhat easier to do proofs of existence than universal since you can pick any value and the proof will be completed (ex: pick x = ____) Universals are a different story or it may seem a different story since I rarely did any studying in this course. I guess just not making an example when proving something often makes me feel that I have to do more work but it makes sense since to prove there's no counter-example, you would have to write EVERY single example to prove it. Hopefully the solution to this is just a few increments of a variable and it will hold true for the proof.

As Reading Week approaches, I definitely should start reading all the material I rarely practiced in this course as there is no concrete way to study for this course than to keep doing examples. Even at that stage the answers can skewer your way of thinking as my professor has warned. This course has definitely made me think about what I'm doing in university and why I'm here in the first place. Although the material may sound a bit convoluted at first, the professor make it possible to even understand the material. Even after failing the midterm, I still function and managed to make this post (been fighting it for over 10 years alongside with 'gaming OCD', and perfectionism). Well it's time to get it together and start getting serious about my education.

About the Term Test: If you mention a specific statement in the sentence, then it's assumed that anything else is disregarded. So when I negated the delta epsilon statement (still don't know what this even means, should go "buy" a textbook and read on it) I ONLY negated the predicates because it said ONLY. I have no idea whether it's my fault for over thinking the question (doesn't every student do this at this point because professors say ambiguous statements even at the 20th century; yes I know people make mistakes but at university c'mon now.) or apparently I can't read basic English sentences. To be honest, this term test really was just list comprehension. Had I never had a term test or an evaluation where one of the smaller topics discussed in the curriculum had been so emphasized in this course. I have no idea if this applies to other courses at UofT but if it is, it really is an insult to the evaluations I had done in high school which means just studying the right topic will make you a more academic merited person rather than someone who actually kept with the studies and has knowledge of every topic until the term test. /rant

EDIT: So the professor mentioned to negate the whole sentence so I was wrong. At first thought I wasn't doing well in subjects because I didn't fully read the sentence but this is on some new level of confusion.


“The lower you fall, the higher you'll fly.”  ― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club