So, we've finished 2 weeks of CSC165: Mathematical Expression and Reasoning for Computer Science, and started the 3rd today (we broke the rules of math! It was mind-boggling fun, especially at 11am.) I honestly don't know what to say about the course so far, so perhaps I'll just stick with a few insights that the prof, Danny Heap, so aptly stated himself:
- In week 1: Know that feeling you get when you've finally done something meaningful? That exhilarating head-rush of endorphins? (probably not.) Well you will soon! Apparently, solving problems is not only fun, but also the easiest way to get "a cheap, legal high"! Who knew math could be so exciting, and serve as a compelling substitute for drugs?! Well, now you know. Just make sure to write Danny in as a footnote on your road to success (especially if you ever solve that 'Streetcar Drama' puzzle.)
-In teaching about universal claims: "All females earn less than 55,000. To prove this claim false, you need to find just one counterexample. If we look at the table we'll see there's only one employee earning above 55,000. However, Al (60,000), is not a counterexample... because of chromosomes."
-In talking about equivalence: " If M 'belongs to' R, and R 'belongs to' M, that implies that R = M. Ok? Good, now let's avoid cheap jokes like 'same-set marriage' and move on with the lecture."
I doubt I'll ever be in a position to allot footnotes to people, but I'll keep that in mind, Danny.
Till next time, cheers.
Thanks for reminding me of the same-sets remark. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'd say, but I'd forgotten saying it. Often during lecture I'm processing so intently --- blabbing, trying to read peoples' expressions, jumping forwards to what I'll say next and then backwards to what I said before --- that I operate in a sort of trance. At the end of the hour I surface and wonder what sort of irrevocable cognitive damage I might have inflicted on vulnerable minds.
ReplyDeleteSo I'll be happy to quote you quoting me, during a good point in the trance...