Post has attachment

Number Sense:

IPracticeMath provides the math practice as well as lesson plans for numbers. This topic starts with the even, odd, Divisibility rules, prime & composite numbers and exposes students to square, cube, factorial of a number to develop the understanding of negative numbers. http://goo.gl/4bjXkt

IPracticeMath provides the math practice as well as lesson plans for numbers. This topic starts with the even, odd, Divisibility rules, prime & composite numbers and exposes students to square, cube, factorial of a number to develop the understanding of negative numbers. http://goo.gl/4bjXkt

Sorry guys, I'm so far behind in the assignments, that I'm going to move to more of an observer status. I'll do the work, but not in time to do the assessment.

wow did alright 30/31

Tony: Tested out the answer for 5a) on the forum and was quickly found lacking. C must be included in the answer.

I'm only just getting to these, but I think that's because D(x) only means domestic, not domestic car. Therefore for 5(a) I had:

∀x∈C(D(x)=>M(x))

I'm only just getting to these, but I think that's because D(x) only means domestic, not domestic car. Therefore for 5(a) I had:

∀x∈C(D(x)=>M(x))

Question 15. I marked it as 14/24, based on 0, 4, 4, 4, 2, 0. What did other people get?

Interestingly, out of 16,500 active students last week, only 7,500 submitted the problem sets.

Whew. I am not going to leave it until the last minute in the future (by which I mean the last 3 days but this week just took so much time to figure out 3 days was barely enough)

I think I am enjoying the challenge though. When I get the results back from the problem set I'll tell you if I'm really enjoying it or just drowning.

I think I am enjoying the challenge though. When I get the results back from the problem set I'll tell you if I'm really enjoying it or just drowning.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

I wonder if you guys can help me out here. I'm able to apply the conditional table rules mechanically, but I don’t really understand them yet. In the lecture, Keith makes the statement “ф does not imply ψ if, even though ф is true, ψ is nevertheless false”. That makes intuitive sense. If ф is true, but ψ is false, then ф can’t imply ψ.

He then jumps to “in all other circumstances, ф ≠> ψ”, which means ф => ψ will be true. This is a leap I can’t make. To give an example, if ф is the statement "1=3" (false) and ψ is the statement "3=3" (true), then why is ф => ψ true? 1=3 is false goes some way to explaining 3=3 is true I suppose, but does it imply it?

If ф is the statement "1=3" (false) and ψ is the statement "apples = bananas" (false), how is ф => ψ true?

He then jumps to “in all other circumstances, ф ≠> ψ”, which means ф => ψ will be true. This is a leap I can’t make. To give an example, if ф is the statement "1=3" (false) and ψ is the statement "3=3" (true), then why is ф => ψ true? 1=3 is false goes some way to explaining 3=3 is true I suppose, but does it imply it?

If ф is the statement "1=3" (false) and ψ is the statement "apples = bananas" (false), how is ф => ψ true?

Wait while more posts are being loaded