1. The bad news about the reading today is that I didn't understand hardly a word of it. I was pretty excited when we defined an odd number as the variable y that makes the statement x=2y+1 even. I chucked thinking that it's funny to find an odd by looking for an even. So. Equivalence relations. What I understand is that an equivalence statement is one that is reflexive, symmetric and transitive. Even after the reading, I'm still unsure of the role of the equal sign in the equivalence relation. That's how confused I was. I'm excited for the lecture and maybe rereading the section when I'm not half asleep.
2. Equivalence classes are fun. I don't see the purpose for them, but I'm starting to see a theme here...the less I understand the purpose of something, the more I like it. Perhaps in the pre-moral life I chose to be one of those people who loves abstract math. BUT. I liked thinking of the equivalence classes as families. It made it semi-easier to understand. Now I know there are things in the equivalence class that are not equivalent to each other, but ARE equivalent to a larger set, A.
No comments:
Post a Comment