2/08 lecture evaluation about 60 responses 9 bonus points awarded for asking questions 2 1KnowLogical-Values: 1) very bad 1 1KnowLogical-Values: 2) bad 16 1KnowLogical-Values: 3) ok 17 1KnowLogical-Values: 4) good 24 1KnowLogical-Values: 5) very good 1 1LecLogical-Values: 1) very bad 18 1LecLogical-Values: 3) ok 24 1LecLogical-Values: 4) good 17 1LecLogical-Values: 5) very good 1 2KnowLogical-Ops: 1) very bad 4 2KnowLogical-Ops: 2) bad 10 2KnowLogical-Ops: 3) ok 29 2KnowLogical-Ops: 4) good 16 2KnowLogical-Ops: 5) very good 1 2LecLogical-Ops: 1) very bad 1 2LecLogical-Ops: 2) bad 17 2LecLogical-Ops: 3) ok 30 2LecLogical-Ops: 4) good 11 2LecLogical-Ops: 5) very good 1 3KnowLogical-Quantifiers: 3 3KnowLogical-Quantifiers: 1) very bad 10 3KnowLogical-Quantifiers: 2) bad 25 3KnowLogical-Quantifiers: 3) ok 17 3KnowLogical-Quantifiers: 4) good 4 3KnowLogical-Quantifiers: 5) very good 1 3LecLogical-Quantifiers: 0) don't remember seeing it 3 3LecLogical-Quantifiers: 1) very bad 6 3LecLogical-Quantifiers: 2) bad 23 3LecLogical-Quantifiers: 3) ok 23 3LecLogical-Quantifiers: 4) good 4 3LecLogical-Quantifiers: 5) very good 4 4KnowDeMorgans-Laws: 1) very bad 10 4KnowDeMorgans-Laws: 2) bad 23 4KnowDeMorgans-Laws: 3) ok 20 4KnowDeMorgans-Laws: 4) good 3 4KnowDeMorgans-Laws: 5) very good 1 4LecDeMorgans-Laws: 0) don't remember seeing it 1 4LecDeMorgans-Laws: 1) very bad 10 4LecDeMorgans-Laws: 2) bad 25 4LecDeMorgans-Laws: 3) ok 20 4LecDeMorgans-Laws: 4) good 3 4LecDeMorgans-Laws: 5) very good 8 5LecLogical-Uses: 0) don't remember seeing it 2 5LecLogical-Uses: 1) very bad 8 5LecLogical-Uses: 2) bad 24 5LecLogical-Uses: 3) ok 16 5LecLogical-Uses: 4) good 2 5LecLogical-Uses: 5) very good 2 6KnowLogical-Uses: 4 6KnowLogical-Uses: 1) very bad 11 6KnowLogical-Uses: 2) bad 23 6KnowLogical-Uses: 3) ok 17 6KnowLogical-Uses: 4) good 3 6KnowLogical-Uses: 5) very good 1 7LecPace: 1) way too slow 2 7LecPace: 2) too slow 42 7LecPace: 3) ok 12 7LecPace: 4) too fast 3 7LecPace: 5) way too fast 1 7LecOverall: 1) very bad 3 7LecOverall: 2) bad 27 7LecOverall: 3) ok 23 7LecOverall: 4) good 6 7LecOverall: 5) very good ---- q> I think that we should go over DeMorgans Laws and how to use q> logical things with the Laws. That was kind of confusing ok. ---- q> please go over logical uses next class ok. ---- q> The pace was fast for me... ---- q> I understood more in this lecture than I do in most. I believe q> this is because I'm starting to get a better feel for MATLAB than I q> did at that beginning of the year. ---- q> I was a little confused on extracting elements and replacing them q> with new values. I also thought the DeMorgan-Laws explanation was q> to short. i'll go over it again. ---- q> The lecture was thorough, in that it provided ample examples for me q> to understand the concepts introduced. I would like to have more q> exercises on DeMorgans Law, I'm sure that we will have something q> with it on the next project, though. ---- q> The lecture was good, at times confusing since i believe that q> matlab does in fact have a XOR function, but the online lecture q> notes should clarify any doubts one may have. ? ---- q> Most students would probably found it easier to understand logical q> quantifiers if you had simply said that $any$ returns true if there q> is a true in the array, and that $all$ returns false if it finds a q> false. Other than that, it was a good lecture. thanks: i'll give your explanation next lecture. ---- q> Maybe it was just me, but I found the lecture a little slow-paced q> today, especially when going over the logical values and such, q> because it wasn't very difficult to grasp but was emphasized a lot. q> I guess it was important though. ---- q> The end of the lecture was rushed. I felt like the examples were q> rushed through. I learn best when examples are given. It allows me q> to think of and ask questions I would have otherwise not thought q> of. Please spend more time on examples. Today was the best day for q> questions. I think this is largely due to taking the time to go q> through examples. q> thank you ---- q> I actually like this lecture very much...it sounds pretty easy and q> FUN! ^^ ---- q> Do not understand 1) "False or C = C". 2) "True and C = C". Too q> abstract. i'll go over it again. ---- q> I didn't understand what: false or C=C and True and C=C really means q> And I still don't understand what the statements represent. ---- q> I thought topics like DeMorgans-Laws and the stuff it ties into was q> gone over too quickly. ---- q> The beginning portion of the lecture was very easy to understand q> becuase the subject matter was self-explanatory. ---- q> A bit fast but good lecture ---- q> I fell asleep at the end of the lecture: the lecture tends to be q> monotonous because the pace is slow and because there is a lot of q> periods of silence(while the professor writes down the notes). It q> would be better if the lecture notes were already printed before q> the lecture so that the teacher can go through them in detail q> without wasting time and avoiding minor mistakes that confuse the q> student. ---- q> Some of the stuff about De Morgan's laws and the $any()$ and q> $all()$ functions seemed to go too quickly but it didn't make much q> sense. The idea of AND and OR kept being compared to multiplication q> and addition. I think it was just hard stuff, though, that seemed q> to have no practical application. Maybe seeing De Morgan's laws or q> those functions used in a code would make them more accessible. ---- q> some points weren't clarified very well, but the lecture pace was q> pretty good. ---- q> I thought this was a very interesting lecture and it was extremely q> helpful. ---- q> I thought this lecture spent too much time presenting commands that q> were self explanatory. Once the commands are presented, I think it q> would be more helpful to have more complex examples of what they q> are used for. q> This would be much better for when the projects get assigned. ---- q> i still don't understand demorgan's law!!! ---- q> The subject was covered well, but I still don't understand quite q> how it works and wouldn't mind a little more time on it (DeMorgan's q> Law). For example: why does it turn an AND into an ALL? it turns $any$ into $all$. i'll go over this again. ---- q> I thought the lecture was easier to follow than some of the ones q> before. the examples about logial values were good. could have q> spent more time on explaining the uses and practicality of logics. ----