Question
Comedy and Wasting Time
Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 am
Was Advanced Functions a Waste of Time?
@Trarod, @memeNicky07:
Agreed. +1 to both of you.
The way I understand proofs, unfortunately, is severely limited. Induction is the only thing that I know at the moment, but here is my way of explain it:
Prove that the summation of x from 1 to n (i.e. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... + n) = n (n + 1) / 2
The Principle of Mathematical Induction states that it works if the following condition is met:
This formula is defined for all natural numbers (POSITIVE integers), therefore, if it works for the number (k), then it must work for the number (k + 1):
Which means the following, in this specific instance, prove that: n (n + 1) / 2 + (n + 1) = (n + 1) (n + 2) / 2 [in other words, n is replaced by (n + 1)]. This is proven to be true by expanding, as (n^2 / 2 + n / 2) + (n + 1) = n^2 / 2 + 1.5n + 1 = (n^2 + 3n + 2) / 2; whereas if you replace n with (n + 1) in the non-expanded expression, (n + 1) (n + 1 + 1) / 2 = (n + 1) (n + 2) / 2 = (n^2 + 3n + 2) / 2. These expressions match, and formula for this summation is proven.
I hope my proof is complete and correct......but this also proves something else: the Ministry of Education never bothers to do these discrete math things now...
Agreed. +1 to both of you.
The way I understand proofs, unfortunately, is severely limited. Induction is the only thing that I know at the moment, but here is my way of explain it:
Prove that the summation of x from 1 to n (i.e. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... + n) = n (n + 1) / 2
The Principle of Mathematical Induction states that it works if the following condition is met:
This formula is defined for all natural numbers (POSITIVE integers), therefore, if it works for the number (k), then it must work for the number (k + 1):
Which means the following, in this specific instance, prove that: n (n + 1) / 2 + (n + 1) = (n + 1) (n + 2) / 2 [in other words, n is replaced by (n + 1)]. This is proven to be true by expanding, as (n^2 / 2 + n / 2) + (n + 1) = n^2 / 2 + 1.5n + 1 = (n^2 + 3n + 2) / 2; whereas if you replace n with (n + 1) in the non-expanded expression, (n + 1) (n + 1 + 1) / 2 = (n + 1) (n + 2) / 2 = (n^2 + 3n + 2) / 2. These expressions match, and formula for this summation is proven.
I hope my proof is complete and correct......but this also proves something else: the Ministry of Education never bothers to do these discrete math things now...
Asked by liumeng2027078
uThink Member
SHARE
You can share this question using these networks.
25 answers
Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 am
A liberal arts degree is a good building block. If you plan on going for a masters or a PHD a liberal arts degree will be very helpful. However its not that good on its own
uThink Member
SHARE
You can share this question using these networks.
Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 am
@BasketballFan wroteA liberal arts degree is a good building block. If you plan on going for a masters or a PHD a liberal arts degree will be very helpful. However its not that good on its own
Grad school is often a blanket statement. A Masters in Medieval Studies or Old English doesn't u make anymore employable, and getting a PhD and becoming a professor is already a great challenge in itself and oversaturated. who got time fo dat?
Grad school is often a blanket statement. A Masters in Medieval Studies or Old English doesn't u make anymore employable, and getting a PhD and becoming a professor is already a great challenge in itself and oversaturated. who got time fo dat?
uThink Member
SHARE
You can share this question using these networks.
Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 am
@siekat wroteGrad school is often a blanket statement. A Masters in Medieval Studies or Old English doesn't u make anymore employable, and getting a PhD and becoming a professor is already a great challenge in itself and oversaturated. who got time fo dat?
It does make job candidates more employable because the rigour of a graduate degree is much more difficult than that of undergrad. This demonstrates to employers that you're willing to work hard which is why they would want to hire you. Besides, if you're starting out at an entry-level position, you won't likely have any job experience in that sector (most employers want 5 years+) unless you do some sort of co-op/internship with your degree.
It does make job candidates more employable because the rigour of a graduate degree is much more difficult than that of undergrad. This demonstrates to employers that you're willing to work hard which is why they would want to hire you. Besides, if you're starting out at an entry-level position, you won't likely have any job experience in that sector (most employers want 5 years+) unless you do some sort of co-op/internship with your degree.
uThink Member
SHARE
You can share this question using these networks.
Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 am
A masters degree definitely makes you more employable, plus a lot of high up positions require a masters degree. You cant be a CEO of anything with out a masters
uThink Member
SHARE
You can share this question using these networks.
Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 am
@BasketballFan wroteA masters degree definitely makes you more employable, plus a lot of high up positions require a masters degree. You cant be a CEO of anything with out a masters
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs (in his grave) and numerous others would all beg to differ.
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs (in his grave) and numerous others would all beg to differ.
uThink Member
Real advice from real students.
Got a question about student life? From program comparisons to
admission
requirements to residence reviews—get real answers
from real Canadian students.
Ask your question
