![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dammit, I'm mad
Oct. 27th, 2005 05:45 pm... at myself for not doing the home schooling thing earlier.
Spent about half the day at the Children's Museum again, with a long traipse through the rest of the building (Museum of Civilisation, in part because Daniel is learning about Native Canadians and there's a huge exhibit of West Coast Native stuff downstairs). Also went to a very short meeting with my assistant editors in the morning and managed to finish all my Labour Law readings and most of my Law Review readings while the kids played in the World Market and the Pyramids section in the Children's Museum. A pretty relaxed, fun, and productive day.
Of course I'm also pretty wiped, but it's a good kind of wiped. A "wow I did a lot of stuff - gonna sleep like a log tonight" rather than "I don't know if I can manage to slog through until I'm allowed to collapse in a heap and lay awake wondering if I can possibly survive another day like today and trying to decide whether the fact that I've survived about three years' worth of days just like today is comforting or horrifying."
Had too many of those when the kids were babies and Chris was starting his residency and we were both deeply depressed. This? Is better.
***
Speaking of Law Review readings: "If a judge has any appeals court experience, he or she can be considered for a position on the Supreme Court. This means, of course, that if a judge does not have any appeals court experience, he or she cannot be considered."
Make sense?
I remember, waaay back in second year (undergrad) Formal Methods or possibly Discreet Math (as opposed to Casual Methods and Blatant Math), we were told that (I know I'm screwing up the technical symbols here, but I can't find the right ones in HTML):
(N -> P) does not equal (not!N -> not!P).
In other words, if the fact that N is true necessarily implies that P is true, this does not mean that if N is false, P must therefore also be false.
Otherwise the statement "If a child's name is Bill, he or she is a boy. This means, of course, that if a child's name is not Bill, he or she is not a boy" would make perfect sense.
I just went through a sixty page paper where there were at least ten of the above assertions, and long, very persuasive arguments based on those assertions. My head is spinning. I no longer feel entirely confident in my knowledge of my own name.
Spent about half the day at the Children's Museum again, with a long traipse through the rest of the building (Museum of Civilisation, in part because Daniel is learning about Native Canadians and there's a huge exhibit of West Coast Native stuff downstairs). Also went to a very short meeting with my assistant editors in the morning and managed to finish all my Labour Law readings and most of my Law Review readings while the kids played in the World Market and the Pyramids section in the Children's Museum. A pretty relaxed, fun, and productive day.
Of course I'm also pretty wiped, but it's a good kind of wiped. A "wow I did a lot of stuff - gonna sleep like a log tonight" rather than "I don't know if I can manage to slog through until I'm allowed to collapse in a heap and lay awake wondering if I can possibly survive another day like today and trying to decide whether the fact that I've survived about three years' worth of days just like today is comforting or horrifying."
Had too many of those when the kids were babies and Chris was starting his residency and we were both deeply depressed. This? Is better.
Speaking of Law Review readings: "If a judge has any appeals court experience, he or she can be considered for a position on the Supreme Court. This means, of course, that if a judge does not have any appeals court experience, he or she cannot be considered."
Make sense?
I remember, waaay back in second year (undergrad) Formal Methods or possibly Discreet Math (as opposed to Casual Methods and Blatant Math), we were told that (I know I'm screwing up the technical symbols here, but I can't find the right ones in HTML):
(N -> P) does not equal (not!N -> not!P).
In other words, if the fact that N is true necessarily implies that P is true, this does not mean that if N is false, P must therefore also be false.
Otherwise the statement "If a child's name is Bill, he or she is a boy. This means, of course, that if a child's name is not Bill, he or she is not a boy" would make perfect sense.
I just went through a sixty page paper where there were at least ten of the above assertions, and long, very persuasive arguments based on those assertions. My head is spinning. I no longer feel entirely confident in my knowledge of my own name.
