5.2


  1. I did read the entire section. I think the hardest part for me was just getting an intuition for these things. They're so much different than what's done in an analysis class that I'm used to, that it's going to take time to "build the world". I especially didn't get the chain rule and conditional probability hasn't quite clicked yet either. The other formulas seemed based off those.
  2. This once again takes me back to a stats class I took. It was definitely not nearly as deep and definitely not nearly as thorough or fast as we're moving. I think that's for the best, since I didn't feel I learned as much as I could've in that class.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

1.9

I read the entire section. The hardest part for me was wrapping my head around what it meant for two numbers to be congruent. Through the reading I was able to grasp it more, but I need some more time with it. I did understand it enough for Fermat's Theorem and it's proof to make sense though. More than anything this reminded me of quotient spaces that we're learning about in 344. They're similarly defined/explained with modulus and equivalence classes. There's definitely and underlying thread that runs through both of them.
Read more

3.1

I did read the entire section. The hardest thing for me was simply remembering all the definitions. Walk, cycle and path all seem like they could mean the same thing, so just getting used to distinguishing them. The concepts themselves weren't terribly hard. This reminds me of a discrete math class I took where we covered graph theory pretty extensively. A lot of the theorems I saw in the book I recognized from that class. It was mainly a class for CS majors, and it's cool to finally see how graph theory connects to data structures since we never covered that before.
Read more

1.3

I did read the entire section. The hardest part for me was becoming comfortable at considering/seeing a summation as a type of integration of functions on discrete sets. I have seen the difference operator before, but never the summation. I don't know if it's a difficult thing as much as I need some time to get my hands dirty with it. Like I said before, I had a class where we covered the difference operator briefly. We used in mainly to solve recurrence relationships, and I imagine we'll do something similar here. I found it really cool how simply it fits into the summations as a relationship similar to that of integration/differentiation.
Read more