Post feed
 Comments feed

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The price of a tea and a slice

Unlike last Tuesday, there was a tut today. We didn't quite finish the exercises on Thursday so we took today to catch up - all ten of us [the Tuesday tut is always very poorly attended]. We had a joyous chalky hour and made good progress on the hardest of the exercises. Strangely, it feels good to have chalk dust in my hands again. It's been a year or more since I had cause to work on a blackboard and my handwriting has deteriorated appallingly.

After watching Peter expand the second partial derivative d/dx(du/da) [where u is a function of a and b, which are themselves functions of x and y], I finally began to have some slight inkling of how the chain rule works. Inspired, I sat down and worked for two hours towards completing assignment question 4. At the end of that time I realised I'd made a silly fatal error in the first line, so instead of finishing the assignment, I sulked for a bit.

Sulking made me feel better. The assignment is finished now, so I can TeX it tomorrow. Early!

9 comments:

Donald said...

Those times of feeling that you're just grasping onto the inkling of an idea are great, as long as your precarious train of thought doesn't get knocked over the precipice by a crosswind.

Which seems somewhat related to us and them.

Donald said...

How did I manage to misspell "unrelated" as related?

Maybe sleep is required.

gliderguider said...

Sleep is required when you can't prove that sqrt(2) is irrational...

Gael said...

As you can prove that sqrt(2) is irrational at the drop of a tangent, Bruce, obviously you never need sleep.

Star for Donald!

Donald said...

From

  ¬a ⇒ b

it does not follow that

  a ⇒ ¬b

(where a is "you can prove that sqrt(2) is irrational" and b is "sleep is required")

gliderguider said...

Gael caught red-handed in the fallacy of denying the antecedent!!!!!

Gael said...

It wasn't me! "When" is not an implicating term!

gliderguider said...

It's not? Lots of programming languages have certainly used it as a synonym for "if" but with an empty "else" clause.

Gael said...

It is insufficiently precise to be considered to represent formal implication when used in a conversational context.

Post a Comment

You can use $\LaTeX$ here if you like. Enclose it in "$" or "\[" as if you were using your favourite editor.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.