5.4-5.5, due on October 1

DIFFICULT
Existence statements do not seem as complicated as proofs involving sets with various set operators. These existence proofs look very familiar to counterexamples, especially section 5.5.  I think the only difficult thing of this reading block would be the LaTeX document that needs to be prepared, and LaTeX is getting easier to use.  Sections 5.4 and 5.5 seem intuitive.

REFLECTIVE
As stated above existence proofs are very similar to using counterexamples.  Both these sections shouldn't be too different than what we've seen in the past.  They also shouldn't been much more complicated.

5.2-5.3, due on September 29

DIFFICULT
Remembering all the tools we learned and brought together and are now talking about in section 5.3 will be the tough part.  Section 5.2 will be only as hard at Proof by Contrapositive, I think.

REFLECTIVE
Section 5.2 also doesn't look to rough at first.  I love visual things that have all the information in one place, like Figure 5.2 in section 5.3.  Section 5.3 will be a great section to go over since there is a coming test this weekend.  I would prefer there to be more of it than section 5.2 in lecture.

4.5-4.6 and 5.1, due September 26

DIFFICULT
The most difficult topics to me in this reading set, would be the Set Operations, for some reason I can just never grasp that.  So between understanding Set Operations and typing things in LaTeX this coming assignment should be fun.

REFLECTIVE
I've used counterexamples in Linear Algebra a couple times so section 5.1.  As for the proofs side of things, they are getting easier the more I do them.

4.3-4.4, due on September 24

DIFFICULT
Section 4.4 I know will be especially hard for me since I didn't quite understand the material back when we first discussed it at the beginning of the semester.  I understand the basics of set operations, but I have a hard time visually understanding it still.

REFLECTIVE
Section 4.3 seemed pretty intuitive and easy to understand.  The section was just like the other proofs that we have done, the only difference is involving Real Numbers.  With this addition of Real Numbers we can be more versatile in writing proofs.

ANSWERS
On average I would say the homework has taken me 1.5-2 hours to complete.  Although the first LaTex assignment took me 4 hours, now this is absurd to me.  If the first LaTeX assignment took 4 hours to complete then the other LaTeX assignments will probably take me longer to complete, I just don't have time to teach myself the language of LaTeX and write proofs.  I love to read, but I just can't follow textbooks or solutions manuals very well.  So after reading I'm not sure how much I can remember.  The lectures however are helping prepare me for the assignments more than reading the subject material before class.  I believe lectures have contributed the most to my learning, then the assignments, then the subject material readings.  I take very detailed notes while in class, I actually think I have over 20 pages thus far, so I think my note taking is good.  I enjoy your lectures and find them easy to understand.  I would just like to see harder examples of proofs in lecture as most of our assignments contain harder/more confusing proofs than the examples shown in class.  I would also like to see more LaTeX syntax in class.

4.1-4.2, due on September 22

DIFFICULT
Section 4.1 I can foresee being difficult, just because of syntax.  Proofs are getting to be easier to understand, through the examples in class and in the textbook.  Section 4.2 material has always been confusing to me.  I've taken a computer programming class in the C++ language and I still have yet to grasp the modulo operator.

REFLECTIVE
Section 4.1 doesn't seem to be too difficult and actually somewhat intuitive. Consequently the material found in section 4.2 I have seen before.  So I am hoping that this next lecture will help clarify a few things.

3.3-3.5, due on September 19

DIFFICULT
After doing the homework due tomorrow, I've concluded that I need more examples of how to prove something.  I just don't think things were clear when you first presented proofs to me in class last Wednesday.  Like the truth table we discussed on Wednesday about P implying Q.  Which of the results yields a Trivial Proof and which a Vacuous Proof.  I clearly understand the objective behind section 3.3, but I feel my Proof-Foundation a little shaky, especially after the assignment due tomorrow.  Like take for example problems 3.1 and 3.2, I had no idea how I arrived at my final answer, or if they were right.  Same thing goes for section 3.4, I understand the objective just not how to arrive at the objective.

REFLECTIVE
The math related in these three sections are intuitive and easy to understand, its just the proofs part that I am having a hard time seeing.  Most of the time following the examples found in the section leave me more confused than when I began.  I have a love hate relationship with mathematics, and this stuff is only making me hate math more, because I don't understand proofs.

3.1-3.2, due of September 17

DIFFICULT
In section 3.1 I feel like I am reading the same things that I read last chapter, just with given names of different truth table values.  What is the definition of the word: vacuous?  I'm sure once section 3.2 is taught in class I will understand it better.  I'm a visually taught person, it is sometimes hard for me to learn things by reading alone.

REFLECTIVE
Result 3.2 and 3.3 are very intuitive as they are just the mathematics that I have always been taught.  I understand most of the examples portrayed in section 3.2.

Mathematical Writing, due on September 15

DIFFICULT
I struggle finding examples to support my arguments.  Writing mathematical expressions might get a little rough, especially trying to find the proper words to use.  I've never liked the idea of putting words with math, but then again my major is Civil Engineering, I hope this class helps with my problem solving skills as an potential Engineer.

REFLECTIVE
This section is like writing a technical paper, for a technical writing class.  I really liked the content found in the Common Words and Phrases in Mathematics section, I think it will be a great asset to me as I begin writing proofs.  After having taken a technical writing class at BYU, I would like to think I can do well when writing proofs.

2.9-2.10, due on September 12

DIFFICULT
In section 2.10 I'm having a hard time understanding what quantification and an existential quantifier does to help me.  Although maybe I am over-complicating it, because it might be really easy, I tend to do that often.

REFLECTIVE
Section 2.9 was kind of basic, maybe I'm not thinking deep enough.  The section was like the arithmetic laws of commutative, associative, and distributive so it was fairly easy to understand and comprehend.

2.5-2.8, due on September 10

DIFFICULT

I just don't understand the example in section 2.6: 100 is even if and only if 101 is prime, and why it is true.  I found that using a truth table makes these statements quite easy, so maybe when I delve into the next assignment, and after lecture tomorrow, I'll understand it better.

REFLECTIVE

Section 2.5 is just like section 2.4, and I understood section 2.4 more fully after the class discussion on September 8.  Section 2.7 was quite intuitive.  The gospel is a tautology, it is always true no matter the combination and never a contradiction.  We talked about logical equivalence briefly on September 8, and it seemed intuitive, after reading section 2.8 it also seemed intuitive.

2.1-2.4, due on September 8

DIFFICULT
Section 2.2 poses some potential difficulties, for example: ~P : The integer 3 is even.  Remembering the syntax of "~" used in statement notation could be rough.  In section 2.3, I had a hard time understanding when a disjunction was true or false.  In section 2.4 I didn't quite understand the truth table for implication.

REFLECTIVE
Section 2.1, although not mathematics, reminds me of English.  As I was reading section 2.2 I got excited to see what things I will further learn in Math 290.  This chapter seems to be the beginning of the math language of proofs, I guess that's why I got excited when I read through 2.2.  Other than my few questions above, this chapter doesn't seem too tough.

1.1-1.6, due on September 5

DIFFICULT
I found the two terms difference and relative complement confusing.  First, is there a difference between the two terms or are they the same thing.  If they are different, what is that difference?  I tried to consolidate my next issue into a couple of subtopics of the section, but I just couldn't narrow it down to one thing in particular, so I don't understand the entirety of section 1.4.

REFLECTIVE
Section 1.1 through 1.3 were fairly reasonable, especially after our lecture on Wednesday. Section 1.5 Partitions of Sets was an easy section to understand, just because it was very intuitive.  Section 1.6 Cartesian Products of Sets is just like multiplying two matrices together, so that was an easy topic to grasp since I have taken Linear Algebra.

Introduction, due on September 5

Q: What is your year in school and major?
A: I am a Senior majoring in Civil Engineering.

Q: Which calculus-or-above math courses have you taken?
A: I have taken Calculus 1, Calculus 2, Linear Algebra, Calculus 3, and Ordinary Differential Equations.

Q: Why are you taking this class?
A: I'm not going to lie, I am nearing the end of my undergraduate studies at BYU and needed some classes to fill in my 14-credit-scholarship requirement.  Since I only needed Math 290 to minor in math, I though I'd give it a swing.

Q: Tell me about the math professor or teacher you have had who was the most and/or least effective.  What did s/he do that worked so well/poorly?
A: I am a transfer student from Snow College: Ephraim.  My favorite teacher there was Jonathan Bodrero.  He gave us the equations and explained them, and then he did a ton of examples.  He did more examples than theory whenever explaining something new.  That's why I loved him so much as a teacher, he taught me Calculus 1 and 2.  So doing a lot of examples I think is what made him so effective.  In contrast, this other teacher, whose class I later dropped, did too much theory and never enough explaining or examples.  So I think that is what made her less effective.

Q: Write something interesting or unique about yourself?
A: I love and hate math, at Snow College I tutored students, for 2.5 years, in math, physics, and engineering and I loved teaching them.  I loved seeing it make sense for them.  Whereas sometimes I'd be sitting in my own math class and not understanding anything the professor was saying.  I love and hate math, and here I am minoring in Math.

Q: If you are unable to come to my scheduled office hours, what times would work for you?
A: Your office hours work for me.