What was the most difficult part of the material for you?
I had a difficult time understanding why the contrapositive of an implication is logically equivalent to the original statement. Going back to the definition of an implication made the contrapositive make a lot more sense. I think of it this way: if the implication is true and the conclusion is false, then the hypothesis must be true to keep the implication true.
What was the most interesting part of the material for you?
It was interesting to see how a proof could be broken into cases and each case solved by a different method. Even when two elements are very close to one another (e.g. 0 and 1e-10), the proof for these separate cases can be wildly different.
No comments:
Post a Comment