(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Coincidence, but I'm not actually copying gabbysun...

...I had my first violin lesson with my new teacher today. And it was SO GOOD WOW. :D :D :D Maybe it was just that I hadn't had a lesson in about four or five months, but I think it might also have been that I'd been unhappy with both Anne and Shelley (vln and vla teachers) for quite a while. Anne, I've always felt, doesn't really like teaching older students (and it's NOT JUST ME who's noticed, just so you know. Anne basically pushes all her older students off either to Lynley or a non-Suzuki teacher. Ask Caitlyn or Mel sometime.) Also, she knows I'm not going to practice, so I don't... So I guess I kinda feel like this is a chance for a new, practising-every-day leaf. :D With Shelley it was that I constantly disagreed with her musical interpretations and, I mean, when that happens there's just NOTHING you can do. What, I should say to my teacher "Actually I totally hate the way you want me to play this STFU"? Um, no.

So HOORAY, my lesson with Lois went REALLY WELL. We did scales and tonalizations (and OMG I actually enjoyed them... I haven't done them for SO long but Kim made me believe in them again at camp, so...) and reviews and then the Rameau, which went well for a first performance for a teacher (!) AND then I started a new piece, Handel's Sonata Number Four, which I totally do not know because it's not well-known and we hardly ever play it in group, so it was really exciting! I feel very good about it, especially because then I went home AND DID 40 MINUTES OF PRACTICE WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING, yo. *beams*

That was pretty much the be3st thing about my day, although Logic was kinda cool, because there was this one thing where:
Lecturer: Saying A only if B is the same as saying A -> B
Me&restofclass: OMGWTFNO
Lecturer: No, really! *insert really bad explanationhere*
Class: *STILL NOT GETTING IT*
Lecturer: OMG
Class: OMG
Lecturer: Okay try it ANOTHER WAY *draws Venn Diagram*
I: *draw Truth Table*
I&Class: *still not getting it*
Lecturer: OKAY FINE YOU'RE DUMB AND I'M MOVING ON.
I: OMG I UNDERSTAND YAY!!!

Um, I realise that TOTAL INCOMPREHENSION is not normally a fun thing, but it really was then. Because it was so boring and obvious the first two classes, except when it actually didn't make sense and the dumb explanations weren't helping at all. But this one actually made sense when I figured it out, so hooray. (I do, however, think it's dumb to use antecedent and consequent as either side of the ->; consequent implies a causal relationship that is not there.)

Comments

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

And -> means? *doesn't make sense at all!*

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

It wasn't really suppose to make sense, I wasn't trying to explain it, but okay...

in prepositional logic, each letter of the alphabet stands for a sentence- so the letter A might stand for the sentence "Alice will go to the party," and the letter B might stand for "Betty is going to the party." There are various tools used to manipulate these sentence letters and one of them is ->, or the conditional. The conditional is used to mean "If such and such, then so and so"- if J stands for "Jack will go up the hill", and I stands for "Jill will go up the hill", then "J->I" means "If Jack goes up the hill, then Jill will go up the hill."

The problem I was having with it was the conditional using "Only if." We were asked to translate "Alice will go to the patry only if Betty will go to the party." I translated this as "B->A"; the lecturer translated it as "A -> B". He's right, of course; my translation would be "If Betty goes to the party, Alice goes to the party." The original statement does NOT say this; it says if Betty DOES NOT go, Alice will not go- but it does not say that Alice will ALWAYS go if Betty goes. If Betty were to go to the party and Alice were not to go, the original statement is still true, but mine is not.

Effectively, the correct translation means "If Alice is at the party, Betty must also be at the party"- ie it is necessary for Bettuy to be at the party if Alice is at the party. My translation was probably marred by my idea that the -> arrow implies cause and effect (it's not helped by the fact that the part of the logical sentence, or whatever you would call it, before the conditional is referred to as the antedecent and the part after it is referred to as the consequent.) It doesn't; only that if this is true, then that _must_ be true.

Um, you did ask. ;) Sorry.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

No worries. Feel smarter now :) Are you on MSN?