3/06 lecture feedback results about 58 responses 1 1KnowReview-Invariant: 1) very bad 9 1KnowReview-Invariant: 2) bad 31 1KnowReview-Invariant: 3) ok 16 1KnowReview-Invariant: 4) good 1 1KnowReview-Invariant: 5) very good 1 1LecReview-Invariant: 1) very bad 7 1LecReview-Invariant: 2) bad 30 1LecReview-Invariant: 3) ok 18 1LecReview-Invariant: 4) good 2 1LecReview-Invariant: 5) very good 3 2KnowInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 1) very bad 13 2KnowInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 2) bad 32 2KnowInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 3) ok 8 2KnowInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 4) good 2 2KnowInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 5) very good 2 2LecInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 1) very bad 8 2LecInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 2) bad 36 2LecInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 3) ok 11 2LecInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 4) good 1 2LecInv-Max-Sub-Sum: 5) very good 1 3KnowCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 1) very bad 16 3KnowCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 2) bad 24 3KnowCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 3) ok 15 3KnowCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 4) good 2 3KnowCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 5) very good 9 3LecCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 2) bad 34 3LecCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 3) ok 14 3LecCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 4) good 1 3LecCode-Max-Sub-Sum: 5) very good 5 5LecOverall: 2) bad 36 5LecOverall: 3) ok 16 5LecOverall: 4) good 1 5LecOverall: 5) very good 6 5LecPace: 2) too slow 48 5LecPace: 3) ok 3 5LecPace: 4) too fast 1 5LecPace: 5) way too fast ---- q> I definitely feel like I have a better understanding of invariants q> now. Up until now, every time that I thought I understood them, I q> realized that i didn't quite know what they were. ---- q> Maybe you could go over this a little bit again.... ---- q> The pace was much better. I finally felt like i coyld grasp material q> during lecture! ---- q> I understood the maximum subsequence sum example, but how did you q> think of the solution? It would never even occur to me to do something q> like that; especially on an exam. I would be so confused. + experience with loops + looking at examples + the first key loop technique: maintain the answer so far + the second key loop technique (for processing a sequence): maintain information about the previous value ---- q> I think we should go over more what i and j are ---- q> This is the same stuff we did last week--I already understand it--when q> are we going to learn new stuff that will help with different types q> of programings in Matlab? ---- q> It was a pretty good lecture. I was able to understand and follow q> most of the lecture pretty well. ---- q> The lecture was very sloppy and some parts didn't seem to go together q> right. The loop invariant section doesn't make much sense and I feel q> like I am getting farther behind. I am doing all the suggestions you q> gave but I think the lectures should be helping more. ---- q> The examples in lecture today were clear in and of themselves, but q> the connction between what we did--and invariats is still a bit hazy q> for me. ---- q> need more review sessions... ---- q> I think I am way behind, did we have to include loop invariants in q> our last project? not in p3, no. ---- q> Interesting lecture, I thought the max subsequence stuff was a little q> confusing. ---- q> I was still confused on how you found the maximum subsequence sum, q> especially when you traced the maximum subsequence at the end of q> the lecture. I was unsure how you chose some of the numbers that q> you filled in the chart with. ---- q> i am unclear on what a loop varient does and why i would use one. q> I was also unsure where you got some of the numbers you got for the q> maximum subsquence sum. ---- q> Please use the chalkboard. This would allow people to be able to q> read what you're writing down without having to scramble to keep up. ---- q> I am still a little confused about a few things. Perhaps a tutor q> will fix this. ---- q> Invariant loop to ambiguous! HELP can't get it ---- q> some remaining questions - but overall I think ok ---- q> I'd like to learn something new and usefull rather than a rexplanation q> of loop invariants and functions. ---- q> I liked the going over of the invariants, I think I understand them q> much better now. The quiz example confused me because I thought q> a loop invariant had to be some property that the loop had (like q> parity), rather than simply 'read input until stopping value, maintain q> $longestsubseq$' or something similar. a loop invariant is some condition about the variables that the loop maintains ("maintains" = "true each time the loop guard is tested"). "the value of the variable matches its definition" *is* a condition about variables, so "variables match their definitions above" can be a loop invariant. it turns out we usually write "maintain variable definitions (above)" instead of "variables match their definitions above".