2/13 lecture evaluation about 60 responses only 4 bonus points awarded for asking questions: + please ask questions! + please turn in the questions you ask to get bonus credit! + please turn in questions you wanted to ask but didn't! please clearly label questions as "ones you did ask" versus "ones you wanted to ask but didn't". 1 1KnowWhile-Loops: 1) very bad 2 1KnowWhile-Loops: 2) bad 27 1KnowWhile-Loops: 3) ok 23 1KnowWhile-Loops: 4) good 7 1KnowWhile-Loops: 5) very good 3 1LecWhile-Loops: 2) bad 22 1LecWhile-Loops: 3) ok 27 1LecWhile-Loops: 4) good 8 1LecWhile-Loops: 5) very good 2 2KnowProcessing-Input: 1) very bad 12 2KnowProcessing-Input: 2) bad 19 2KnowProcessing-Input: 3) ok 22 2KnowProcessing-Input: 4) good 5 2KnowProcessing-Input: 5) very good 3 2LecProcessing-Input: 0) don't remember seeing it 1 2LecProcessing-Input: 1) very bad 4 2LecProcessing-Input: 2) bad 29 2LecProcessing-Input: 3) ok 21 2LecProcessing-Input: 4) good 2 2LecProcessing-Input: 5) very good 2 3KnowLogical-Stuff: 1) very bad 6 3KnowLogical-Stuff: 2) bad 28 3KnowLogical-Stuff: 3) ok 19 3KnowLogical-Stuff: 4) good 5 3KnowLogical-Stuff: 5) very good 6 3LecLogical-Stuff: 2) bad 25 3LecLogical-Stuff: 3) ok 26 3LecLogical-Stuff: 4) good 3 3LecLogical-Stuff: 5) very good 4 5LecOverall: 2) bad 30 5LecOverall: 3) ok 26 5LecOverall: 4) good 6 5LecPace: 2) too slow 42 5LecPace: 3) ok 11 5LecPace: 4) too fast 1 5LecPace: 5) way too fast q> it was helpful to go over quantifiers and identities again today. q> it would have been helpful to give us a brief overview of what to q> expect on the prelim tonight. sorry, i *had* intended to do that. ---- q> I like that the class seems to be picking up pace. ---- q> You never said what the "-1 stop" in num=input('value(-1 stop)?'); q> did. Does it get displayed, or does it stop the program if -1 is q> entered? the whole string $value (-1 stop)? $, including $-1 stop$, is displayed and then matlab waits for the user to enter data: + a number + a string in single quotes, e.g. $'hello world'$ it is also possible to get $input$ to read a string without requiring the user to type single quotes by calling $input$ with a second value that is $'s'$, meaning "*s*tring input": >> s = input('please type your name (last, first, middle): ', 's'); >> disp(['you entered: ' s]) ---- q> the logical stuff is kind of confusing. i sympathize. programming in general is a new way of thinking, and thinking about logical values is also a new way of thinking. P3 doesn't use logical stuff much: i am introducing it *now* to give you more time to learn it so by the time we do need it, it will hopefully make more sense. ---- q> I understand the logical stuff better now. ---- q> I'm still confused about de morgan's law. please come in to see a recitation instructor or me. ---- q> The lecture was pretty boring... sorry, i know that some people find my delivery monotone and sleep-inducing. i'm afraid that's my natural style. (prof. schwartz is probably more exciting, but some people find him too energetic.) q> I was awake for all the q> unimportant, easy stuff, and then had problems paying attention q> later in the lecture for all the important things. Therefore, more q> important things should be covered earlier in the lecture. i'll try doing that a bit, but sometimes it is important to review things that lay the groundwork for new material. ---- q> Please delve further into processing-input in future lectures, it q> is still somewhat sketchy to me. we will be seeing *many* more examples of processing input and $while$ loops. i hope you found the max-of-sequence example in the 2/15 lecture helpful. ---- q> I'm still not very clear about the input stuff, but I guess I'll be q> familiar with it once I see it in a code or program. Also, I q> thought toward the end, the professor went over the logical stuff q> too quickly. yes, it was a bit rushed. i'll come back to it soonish. note that it is not used much on P3 (e.g., maybe only P3.5.1). ---- q> The use of 0 and 1 as true and false was very helpful in q> comprehending the logic. Reinforcement, however, may be needed in q> future lectures. ---- q> Need to go over logical stuff and see purpose in programming ---- q> I was a little confused by the identities such as 'false or C= C or q> false= C." I found this a little unclear. The while loops also were q> a little difficult, but I think that's just because they're new. I q> have a feeling that after more use, I will become more comfortable q> with these loops. ---- q> Please use the chalkboards instead of the projector. Using the q> projector only allows so many notes before you switch and then you q> can't see what was on previously. i'll try to do better with the projector, but i'm allergic to chalk and i think i do better on paper than on a blackboard. ---- q> Logic review was somewhat redundant, it would have been useful to q> see an example of the input processing. ---- q> Please review Logical stuff again - We again got cut short ---- q> We went over while loops in the AEW, so I already had a good q> understanding. The lecture reinforced my knowledge, though. ---- q> We talked about imput in AEW so I had some previous understanding q> of this topic, which is a good suppiment to the lecture. ---- q> Good Examples which illustrated the material. ---- q> The subject were too new for me... ---- q> I thought going over the logical stuff again was very helpful ---- q> The fork & spoon example really clarified De Morgan. ---- q> Everything was pretty basic. Nothing was very confusing. ---- q> I didn't really understand the identities part of the logic. Also I q> thought that we could have spent more time on processing input; I q> don't really know what to do if I want the user to input a string q> as opposed to a number, for example. (an example was posted on the newsgroup a while back; i've given another example above.) ---- q> tracing one of the examples would have been helpful oops! you're right. i hope the trace in the 2/15 lecture was helpful. ---- q> I feel the lecture moves too fast and assumes understanding q> already. please come in to talk to me. i'm trying not to assume previous knowledge, but perhaps i'm not succeeding. (also, i do have the information from the registration form about previous experience: i'll do some data analysis soonish to see how big an effect there is.) ---- q> The lecture moves too fast and assumes prior knowledge. ---- q> Sometimes I get really lost in lectures. I feel as though previous q> knowledge of programming is neccessary to understand stuff q> sometimes. ---- q> i think more examples would be useful. ---- q> Going over De Morgan's law, identities and quantifiers again in q> lecture really helped me out. I understand them better than the q> first time I saw them. ---- q> Good lecture, but the pace was a bit slow. ---- q> Some of the topics and the thinking behind them are difficult for q> people who have never taken any sort of CS course to q> understand. Logical values and loops fall in this category. It q> would make it easier to understand these topics if you explained q> the ideas behind them from this point of view rather than from the q> point of view of someone who has taken CS. please come talk to me. i think that would help me explain things better. ---- q> That whole C=C stuff is still a tad confusing. Does it mean (false q> or C)=C since if C is true then the entire statement is true and if q> C is false the entire statement is false? And vice versa? I'm q> fairly sure now that this is right, but it would've been a lot q> clearer with brackets. yes. q> With the whole 'false or C=C' thing it q> looked like C=C was one statement (or maybe it's just me and I'm q> dumb). oops, you're right. q> I still have no idea why we would even want to think about this. we have already seen that conditions are needed for $if$ and $while$. we shall shortly need more complicated conditions that are obtained by combining less complicated conditions. these identities are tools to help us simplify some of those complicated conditions to make them more concise and clear. ---- q> Less explainging of "pseudo" code. Just tell us what different q> things do and syntax adn so on, and let us figure out the steup of q> the code. ? not sure what you mean. please elaborate. ---- q> The lecture was pretty good. I understood most of it pretty well. ---- q> This lecture was not too bad. I was able to follow the examples q> and sketches a little better than I have in the past. It's still q> hard for me to then use these functions on my own to solve q> problems, even though I understand how to use them. this is a common problem. all i can suggest is to practice, practice, practice. hopefully the quizzes in the textbook help. you can also try some of the exercises and post about them to the newsgroup. ---- q> The lecture was somewhat helpful, but seems to teach to those who q> have programming experience. For those of us still "in the dark", q> it seems a little tougher to keep up with some of the terminology. q> If questions are asked relating to higher level ideas, the lecture q> seems to cater to these questions, leaving many of us clueless. please ask the questions you care about! do so in lecture, on these lecture evaluations, in section, in office hours, on the newsgroup, in carpenter lab, or -- new policy: at the end of lecture, hand in questions you wanted to ask but didn't. i'll do my best to get them answered.