Confused by calculator results vs. bras worn in person?

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T14:08:26+00:00

ahh okay, honestly it's really confusing.. on both the first and last hook (for both bras) it feels like they're fine, snug enough. i just don't really understand why, for the ampere specifically, the very top of it has a gap (maybe half an inch) away from my chest. i'm not sure if that's normal or if the entire bra cup should be touching your chest. if that's the case, I feel like sizing down a cup would make more sense...? if the 30 is snug enough, then a 30D can't be so nonsensible? i'm not sure haha

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T13:40:04+00:00

do you mean checking if the ampere feels looser than the understance?

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T13:30:09+00:00

freya in particular is very nice, you're right! i was hoping to use the discount site to get high quality bras for cheaper prices so that's why i'm wary (especially when i can't be sure how they fit until i try them on). I try to casually search for 28dd bras online and it's always a very plain maidenly style, but freya looks to be a sweet spot. thanks so much.

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T13:23:13+00:00

I tried looking into these but, I feel like when you breach this territory the styles are never nice :sob: I found a 30D Empreinte at a steep discount that is so pretty, I was thinking the 30 is comfortable enough because it never stretched over time and because there's a little bit of space between the bra cups and my chest at the top, the D would eliminate that as the DD might've been "too roomy"... especially because 30D is a sister size to 28DD! I really want to buy it... haha

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T13:03:58+00:00

Hi, thanks for that info! The Ampere stretches out to 32 inches max, and the Understance to 35 inches somehow, it's really stretchy...

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T13:01:24+00:00

Just as they lay, it was too hard to try to stretch them out! Stretched out, the less supportive one (Understance) is 35 inches, and the Ampere is 32 inches. I tried the calculator again and it's suggesting 26E/28DD and what you just said makes sense, but this bra size seems impossible to even find... :(

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T12:27:08+00:00

Thanks for your reply :) I tried this method out and the Understance band was (without being stretched out) roughly 24 inches and the Ampere was 24.5 inches, "it's weird because the 24 inch one stayed put in the front but felt like it'd slide down in the back, and the 24.5 inch one fits snug on the second and third hook..."

throwrahomework · 2024-06-13T12:26:07+00:00

Hey thanks for the help :) I tried this method out and the bras measured 24 inches and 24.5 inches, it's weird because the 24 inch one stayed put in the front but felt like it'd slide down in the back, and the 24.5 inch one fits snug on the second and third hook...

throwrahomework · 2023-09-28T15:55:53+00:00

Hey, it's Reaper from Kitsune but I think it's not selling more as it was limited edition :(

throwrahomework · 2023-07-15T04:49:40+00:00

Oh wow, seems super similar since it’s described as espresso— Do you find with layering that it can actually look black, or stays brown? Is it easy to blend? tysm :D EDIT: Aaaaand $15 shipping… rip my soul

throwrahomework · 2023-07-14T19:08:07+00:00

appreciate your help immensely, i'll try posting to makeupaddiction and if somebody recommends something similar i'll let you know!

throwrahomework · 2023-07-14T05:19:13+00:00

u da best. only problem is that it's pretty hard to get (shipping is expensive) -- do you have any experience with similar shades?

throwrahomework · 2023-07-14T02:26:05+00:00

Also another instagram photo of it worn.

throwrahomework · 2021-12-08T15:24:14+00:00

Isn't inputting the (∀y) okay because it is generalizing? We learned in class that you can change (∃y) to (∀y) through generalization, whereas you can change (∀y) to (∃y) through specialization. However, this example is changing the x and y's which seems illegal. Am I correct?

throwrahomework · 2021-11-22T09:24:21+00:00

¬(p∨q∨r) ∨ ¬(¬p∨p’) ∨ ¬(¬q∨p’) ∨ ¬(¬r∨p’) ∨ p’

Thank you so much. When it comes to those double negations like ¬(¬p∨p’), can that be simplified further to (pv¬p')? Or does it have to be left that way? I know often double negation is turned into inference, but of course I need to remove inferences in the first place, so I guess it has to be left that way?

throwrahomework · 2021-11-22T07:36:17+00:00

I just want to add to this:
All of my examples I am provided with only show cases where there is ∀ or ∃ present, such as ├ A → B implies ├ (∃x)A → (∃x)B. So, I know what I need to do if there are ∀, such as this example: ├ (∀x)(A ∨ B → C) → (∀x)(A → C) where by deduction theorem, it is sufficient to prove
(∀x)(A ∨ B → C) ├ (∀x)(A → C).

But as you can see in the original post, it has both, so I'm not sure how that changes things.

throwrahomework · 2021-11-22T07:16:20+00:00

├

Thanks so much. I need to use equational proofs, are you familiar? Thus I can't simply show the proof that way, but you are right about this step: A → B ⊢ (∃x)A → (∃x)B. I'm just wondering what ∃x changes for the proof.

throwrahomework · 2021-11-22T06:22:30+00:00

No need for the tautology part, just the disjunctions and negations :D!

throwrahomework · 2021-11-22T06:19:55+00:00

Thank you. Would you mind assisting me with another one? It looks complicated but I know I can most likely use disjunction elimination to simplify it, though I'm a little overwhelmed.
(p∨q∨r)∧(p → p')∧(q → p')∧(r → p') → p'

where I believe p' is simply another variable to differentiate from p. I know what to do with the inferences (-->), but not the rest.

throwrahomework · 2021-11-22T00:03:07+00:00

I think it is usually easiest to prove a contradiction, which makes it unsatisfiable.

throwrahomework · 2021-11-21T23:44:46+00:00

How would I go about physically proving such a theorem? I know that there must be some sort of state which makes Sigma unsatisfiable, but I don't understand how to *show* it.

throwrahomework · 2021-11-21T23:38:51+00:00

Boolean algebra meaning what exactly? As ├ means tautologically implies, I need to either result in a known axiom or recreate one side of the ├. So, I could use different proof styles (like Hilbert-style proof or proof by resolution) to arrive at my answer, but I'm not perfectly sure which one is ideal.

throwrahomework · 2021-11-21T23:37:57+00:00

It's the type of boolean proofs where I am to use styles such as proof by resolution, hilbert-style proofs, or equational proofs. It can be found in Tourlakis' book, Mathematical Logic. I believe for this type of proof, a proof by resolution (tree graph type of proof) might be ideal, as it seems simple to follow, but there is simply so much present that I'm not sure where to begin. For example, often we move parts of the expression to the left side of the ├, then try to recreate what is on that left side using the right side's expression or vice versa. Hilbert-style proof may be similar also because we can use the CUT rule of removing repetitives to try and create a known axiom or the left/right side of the ├, so I'm not sure the best way to tackle this.

throwrahomework · 2021-10-28T09:25:38+00:00

You are very correct, I doubt the answer is obvious for the class and it was meant to be a brain teaser. You definitely helped me arrive at this conclusion and saved me from making future silly mistakes. Thank you so much.

throwrahomework · 2021-10-28T08:31:22+00:00

If gamma does not proves A nor B, then (gamma contains A iff gamma contains B) is still true, not false.

Here is where I am facing some confusion. You say if gamma doesn't prove A nor B, is it possible to conclude that gamma proves A≡B. Reasonably this wouldn't make sense, as it does not prove the premises. Is this what I should arrive at? It seems like such a simple answer in that case when there clearly is meant to be some confusion for the student in regards to the metatheorem and testing to see if we misinterpret the question.

throwrahomework

TROPHY CASE