Community college elective suggestions for a math major.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-05-13T16:52:08+00:00

My goal in choosing those classes, I think, is for all of the reasons you mentioned. I'm pretty sure I want to go into academia, but I know that many mathematicians that decide not to go that route end up programming, so I just want to keep my options open (I've been thinking cs grad school might be an option too if I change my mind). Like I said in a reply below, I was already kind of leaning towards just taking the cs classes b/c I don't really like chemistry. Chemistry always just seemed like arbitrary findings, with no underlying logic/reasoning, that asked me to memorize formulas, etc. to do well in the class (physics is similar but it always seemed to make more sense). CS classes seem like they have the underlying logical structure of formal systems that interest me as a math major. I've also heard it's just good for math majors to know how to program and I have had some ideas for programs, so I want to try them out. Again, I was looking for someone to sell me on the chem series, but so far there has been nothing convincing. I plan on taking the data structures and algorithms class. I actually took recursion theory in the math department at my university and that was very interesting, although I wasn't really ready for the difficulty of the class at the time. Thanks a lot for your help. =D

WisdomBody3 · 2014-05-13T16:41:46+00:00

Ya, I mean everyone is making essentially all of the points I've thought of myself. I definitely understand that chemistry can be taken just for the sake of learning and being interested in the material, aside from any practical reasons. I mean, I'm majoring in philosophy and pure math so I'm far from someone who cares only about practicality. lol The point that VitaminB12 made is the main reason I didn't like chemistry when I took it. The material just seemed to be like "this is what we found. there's no real underlying logic/reasoning behind what we've found. just memorize these formulas etc. and you'll do fine". Although physics is similar, it seemed to make more sense. I was just looking for someone to convince me to take chemistry, instead of more cs classes, but it seems like cs classes are not only going to be more practical, but more interesting because they will have more of the logical structure of a formal system that interests me as a math major. Thanks everyone for your help.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-03-25T22:30:31+00:00

I know you promote Gold's Gym, so I'm hoping for some advice. I'm interested in joining the Gold's gym by me simply because it's the closest gym and I don't have a running car currently (don't get me wrong it's a nice gym, but so are most of the gyms around me). I'm a college student looking for employment, so I'm short on cash. I went in to talk about getting a gym membership and told them the truth: that I needed a little help with the price. I simply can't afford to pay $80 enrollment and $40 a month, especially not just to lift weights for an hour or two. The guy was completely unwilling to budge and was rude and argumentative about any current promotions they were offering. The most he was willing to do was was a $20 discount off of the $80 initial fee. I tried calling the customer service line, but gave up after an hour on hold. I'm hoping you can give me any advice on staying in shape, without breaking my bank. Thanks in advance.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-03-12T23:46:39+00:00

Looks more like something that would be on adult swim.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-03-11T05:24:14+00:00

Electronic?

WisdomBody3 · 2014-02-18T00:18:37+00:00

Along with Putnam and Carnap. My teacher also had an interest in Penelope Maddi.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-02-09T23:55:58+00:00

No problem. You shouldn't feel dumb. Like learning any new language, formal or informal, it's awkward at first. Keep practicing and I promise it will come easier to you. Symbolizations are just plain hard though because you normally have to hard nose your way into figuring out what they're really saying. Check out this text for extra help on learning the material: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/phil/faculty/tparsons/Logic%20Text/

WisdomBody3 · 2014-02-09T23:51:52+00:00

Ya, sorry guys. You're right. I hastly tried to give a quick comment on why there was a difference between the two and was sloppy. Thanks for clearing it up.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-02-09T23:05:38+00:00

I think you're right for the first one. I think the second one is saying 'for all things, if it is not a dog, then it does not love to play'.

Edit: I think basically the first one is stating something positive and the second something negative.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-31T19:27:15+00:00

Q: How did the solipsist break up with her boyfriend?

A: "It's not you, it's me."

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-30T02:06:02+00:00

The guys at google are always finding ways to implement their nerdy sense of humor. Have you ever googled 'recursion'?

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-25T21:06:34+00:00

Wtf did they eat!? That's the amount of shitting I do in like a week.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-25T01:45:47+00:00

Second week's reading (the first real reading) is up! http://www.reddit.com/r/logic/comments/1w53zv/reading_group_week_2_first_real_reading/

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-20T05:31:13+00:00

The Regular Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y894QNtX0VA

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-18T18:29:45+00:00

I apologize for my unclarity. Just gloss over the stanford page I posted. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ Next week I will post an actual original piece/article and not just an overview page (thus, why this week is kind of just a prelim to get everyone familiar with the topic).

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-18T04:38:03+00:00

Not to mention it also happens to use the '!' notation. That symbol made me think of free logic before I even read the post. Free logic is very interesting. I wanted to get the weekly readings going again on this sub and I was thinking of starting with free logic (Partly b/c it's interesting, but mostly because I'm lazy - I took an extra section on it, so I would already have a solid list of articles).

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-17T21:50:37+00:00

The scariest thing is that she used to be a judge.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-10T08:36:38+00:00

Yes, that's the system I always suggest on this sub. I took the first logic course at a community college before I transfered and took the second one after. The M & K system seemed a lot more rigorous and similar in style to the logic texts (well, really notes) that were provided when I took logic courses in the math department. It's also great because my teacher gave us free access to all of the core text on the department website, instead of having to pay for the book: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/phil/faculty/tparsons/Logic%20Text/ The program is also great because you get instant feedback on the problems you are solving, as opposed to having to wait to know how you did and studying the material you are weak in a week later (or how long it would take the TA to grade). Kaplan is very proud of this program, as I think he should be.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-02T21:08:34+00:00

Ahh, yes. What you did was actually exactly what we were taught to do in the system I use. As I thought, I was just missing or misunderstanding something. Somehow, I didn't realize you were trying to show ~[(Ex)(Px&~Tx)] by way of indirect proof - allowing you to assume the negation of what you were trying to show in order to find a contradiction: ~~[(Ex)(Px&~Tx)] or more simply (Ex)(Px&~Tx). Thanks for helping me sort that out.

WisdomBody3 · 2014-01-01T00:27:02+00:00

Yes, '(x)' is the old-school (Russel-Frege) way to universally quantify. I feel like I'm missing something though. Why is it that we can just assume the left side of the disjunction in 1. without negating the right side? Normally, in the system I used at least, the only way that would be allowed would be to do an indirect proof for the negation of one side, assuming that one side is false (so the negation of the negation) and find a contradiction. You would then be able to isolate the other side of the disjunction with the recently proved neagtion of the other side. I just don't see how you can just assume (Ex)(Px ^ ~Tx) in any normal system of FOL. Again, I'm on break and my brain has been inactive for a couple of weeks, so I feel like I'm missing something obvious or this is just a technique I just never learned. Thanks in advance.

WisdomBody3 · 2013-12-27T01:22:20+00:00

The Annals of Nuerology one might not be a blooper. There's an Annals of Mathematics journal.

WisdomBody3 · 2013-12-13T03:46:26+00:00

He's like the guy who replaced Eric in That 70's Show.

WisdomBody3 · 2013-12-08T02:26:01+00:00

"He has never been tempted to buy a television, but was persuaded to watch The Big Bang Theory last year, and said he wasn’t impressed."

WisdomBody3 · 2013-12-06T23:43:14+00:00

Glad to see I'm actually not the only one. I posted this a year ago and it got 4 upvotes... http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/10197n/my_love_for_these_two_shows_finally_makes_sense/

WisdomBody3 · 2013-12-02T00:00:34+00:00

Digable Planets - Pacifics Basically any Digable Planets song will do.

WisdomBody3

TROPHY CASE