The most difficult portion of this text was the actual explanation of contradiction. I understand all the examples and proofs, but when symbols are thrown in it gets hairy. The notation of -> Contradiction threw me for a loop, but as I look at it a second time it does make sense. Another question arises with Theorem 5.16. It states an assumption "We may further assume that a/b has been expressed in lowest terms". I assume that we assumed this just because the nature of the proof. How would we know to do something like this? Is there a guideline?
The prisoner problem was also interesting. Myself, I would just assume that the other two prisoners were dumb and wouldn't follow that logic to find out that their dot was red, but the point was clear. The review likewise was interesting. However we have also read about induction (ahead of the book) so I wonder how that compares to the others. It would be nice to see another table like that with induction in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment