I had a strange feeling after finishing this week's lecture: I did followed up with the pace of the lecture and understand what the profesor was proving, but when I think back of the lecture, I can't speak out what I learned. It's like that we first use our common sense to find some preconditions of a code, then we figure out what the code is doing and that would be our postcondition. Then the process of proving the correctness of the program just seems like we first assume the postcondition, then we just go through the program again while applying some induction to analyze the program.
But I just don't know what is the point of doing this, it seems like that we first analyze the program and get to know what it does, then we analyze the program again but using a more complicated method.
Maybe I need a discussion with someone or wait to see if the professor will tell more next week.
This week's tutorial seems different to me. We did some practice on writing divide and conquer algorithms, as I haven't learned Python before, my code just looked like a combination of C and Python :( Fortunately, the grammer doen't matter. Then we did more practice on Time Complexity and Master Theorem, a little bit hard but was very helpful to understand the lecture materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment