Hello,
I'm Damon Kissoon and I'm beginning my SLOG for the second week of class in CSC165! Let me begin by saying that this is my second year going into computer science, as first year I had an extremely rocky beginning. However, I got back into computer science over the summer, and I'm working to achieve a spot in a subject post for third year! This year, I am taking CSC148 alongside CSC165, as well as MAT137 over the course of the Fall/Winter term, and some second year level courses in software design in the Winter. That being said, I have a lot on my plate.
My other courses aside, I have been having problems here and there in CSC165 so far. I don't have an incredibly strong math background, so that is part of my beginner's frustration, but this week I found that I was catching on to the material a little bit more quickly with the help of some of my peers in class.
For instance, I didn't fully understand how an empty set in the antecedent would elicit that the entire statement would be true. It all came down to my realization that simply, the only way to make a statement false would be for the antecedent to be true, and the consequent to be false. Take for example, "I choose not to speak, therefore I will stay silent." If I were to make this statement false, I would still choose not to speak, but I would end up not staying silent, making me not only a liar, but leaving the statement to be entirely untrue. Using the example used in class, where the antecedent was a set containing "All employees who make over 80 trillion dollars a year", and the consequent was a set containing those employees who "are male", the entire statement is true. I figured out that the only way this was to be false was if there were no counter-examples to the statement. Looking at the chart, the employees simply do not fit into the range of 80 trillion dollars, leaving no real counter-examples, providing the statement to be completely true, noting especially when the statement jumped to a more farfetched conclusion of "All employees who make over 80 trillion dollars a year have mauve eyeballs and breathe ammonia." This statement still appears true because of there already being no clear counter-examples to an employee that makes over 80 trillion dollars a year. I found that quite clear today in lecture, and was extremely glad I did, as it helped me understand implications themselves a little more deeply, and how even statements with a false antecedent can still be true even if the consequent is false or true.
Ultimately this week, I am still a bit shaky when it comes to development of venn diagrams and the illustration of sets containing other sets, as I don't fully understand where the set can be empty and where it contains at least something. I feel, however, that this skill will come with practice and a little bit more time, and I feel if I asked more questions in tutorial, I will get my answer. In general, although my programming background and math background are each a little shaky, I will work my hardest to succeed in fully understanding the way a logician's mind works.
