Greetings friends. I am here to elaborate on my experiences with the CSC165 course. Problem is, I have no idea what I'm doing. What should I write about? How precise should I be?
Ironically, that was the topic of the 1st week's lesson with Prof. Larry Zhang.
Also ironically, we share the last name.
The 1st lesson introduced the concept of precision. Human languages (eg. English, Chinese, French, etc.) can be considered as both ambiguous and precise. It all depends on the wording of our sentences. To be precise with language, we must restrict the meaning of our words to prevent possible misunderstandings. However, being too precise means being too tedious and boring.
Computers require absolute precision in order to execute actions correctly, which is unfortunate for me because I suck at that. So how do we cope with these binary friends? Program comments of course! So for all those CSC148 students who don't write program comments, I don't know who you are, I don't know what you want, I will find you, and I will Liam Neeson you.
Now how will I solve this problem of non commenters? I probably shouldn't dive in without a plan. Thankfully my prof gave me some guidelines as to how to solve a problem.
1. Understand the problem, find out what’s given and what’s required
2. Plan solution(s), try more than one plan
3. Carry out your plan, does it lead to the correct answer?
4. Review your solution, convince others that your solution works
Step 1: Understand the non commenters, and why they don't comment
Step 2: Plan solution: Either Liam Neeson all the commenters, or try my best to remind them to make comments
Step 3: Tried Liam Neeson plan, got taken away by campus security, carried out the second plan, and got people to actually comment their programs
Step 4: Overview of solutions: Violence is not the answer. Comment your programs, save a life.
Result:
Result:
∃(p∈P)s.t. C(t)
There exists (existential quantifier) a person within the set of all persons, who comment their programs. If you want to disprove me, you're gonna have to prove that ALL people don't comment their programs. Good luck with that.
Goal:
∀(p∈P)s.t. C(t)
All people within the set of all persons comment their programs. This is going to be a tough one, because to prove it I have to get every single person to comment their programs, and all you need to disprove me is one example.
Next time on Survivor: CSC165, stay tuned for sentences, symbols, and more math mumbojumbo.
Ironically, that was the topic of the 1st week's lesson with Prof. Larry Zhang.
Also ironically, we share the last name.
The 1st lesson introduced the concept of precision. Human languages (eg. English, Chinese, French, etc.) can be considered as both ambiguous and precise. It all depends on the wording of our sentences. To be precise with language, we must restrict the meaning of our words to prevent possible misunderstandings. However, being too precise means being too tedious and boring.
Computers require absolute precision in order to execute actions correctly, which is unfortunate for me because I suck at that. So how do we cope with these binary friends? Program comments of course! So for all those CSC148 students who don't write program comments, I don't know who you are, I don't know what you want, I will find you, and I will Liam Neeson you.
Now how will I solve this problem of non commenters? I probably shouldn't dive in without a plan. Thankfully my prof gave me some guidelines as to how to solve a problem.
1. Understand the problem, find out what’s given and what’s required
2. Plan solution(s), try more than one plan
3. Carry out your plan, does it lead to the correct answer?
4. Review your solution, convince others that your solution works
Step 1: Understand the non commenters, and why they don't comment
Step 2: Plan solution: Either Liam Neeson all the commenters, or try my best to remind them to make comments
Step 3: Tried Liam Neeson plan, got taken away by campus security, carried out the second plan, and got people to actually comment their programs
Step 4: Overview of solutions: Violence is not the answer. Comment your programs, save a life.
Result:
Result:
∃(p∈P)s.t. C(t)
There exists (existential quantifier) a person within the set of all persons, who comment their programs. If you want to disprove me, you're gonna have to prove that ALL people don't comment their programs. Good luck with that.
Goal:
∀(p∈P)s.t. C(t)
All people within the set of all persons comment their programs. This is going to be a tough one, because to prove it I have to get every single person to comment their programs, and all you need to disprove me is one example.
Next time on Survivor: CSC165, stay tuned for sentences, symbols, and more math mumbojumbo.
This was a hilarious and wonderful application of the problem solving structure to relevant course content. Well done!
ReplyDelete