-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
/
Copy pathnotes.txt
77 lines (51 loc) · 2.1 KB
/
notes.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Notes on Len Brin's notes on GIAM
from giam.okular:
pg 144 "Well let's see one."
???
pg 146 (exercises for 3.1) problem 4, k is unquantified.
problem 5 (about evenness)
LB -- "I'm not sure how to do this without the use of contradiction at some level. The definition is very tricky to work with otherwise."
pg 150 (exercises for 3.2) problem 2 about the quadratic formula was mangled.
fixed.
pg 157 comment on chapter title: "Shouldn't this be just "Disproofs". Granted you discuss disproofs of universal statements, but your main premise seems to be that the proper way to prove ANY statement is to prove its negation."
I suppose that should read "...disprove ANY statement..."
I somehow don't agree, but am making change anyway.
pg 168 (exercise 3) "what cases?"
indeed!
pg 170 the root2^root2^root2 problem lacked parentheses
fixed.
pg 173 redundant parenthesis
must have been fixed previously...
pg 184 LB: "Nowhere have you discussed the symbol for superset. Was
that intentional?"
added a sentence correcting the omission
From giamLaptop.okular:
pg 106 & 107 comma splices
fixed
pg 113 three comma splices
fixed 2 out of 3.
pg 119 comma splice
replaced w/ em-dash
pg 179 The following was circled:
"The membership question: MA (x) = “Is x in the set A?” Or, more
succinctly, MA (x) = “x ∈ A”. Thus the atomic concept “true” from Logic
corresponds to the answer “yes” to the membership question in Set theory
(and of course “false” corresponds to “no”)."
and commented:
"This is a circular "definition" of a set."
me no get it...
pg 181 a quibble
ignored
pg 194 LB: "relative or symmetric?"
relative
pg 195 issue regarding the exercise that uses sets of playing cards
I think it's ok as is...
pg 211 LB identifies this page as the place where we begin
treating 0 as a natural number.
pg 214 a quibble
pg 215 question regarding when the absolute value notation for the
cardinality of a set was introduced (it never was)
added something at the end of section 4.1
page 270 problem 6.3 #4 & #5
the relation Q needs to be defined on Z x Z^*
already fixed