This marks two weeks since the beginning of a new and exciting school year. The first week of lectures was smooth sailing, but by Wednesday of the second week, I began to have a harder time keeping up with the material. With that said, the material also became interesting with the introduction of implications. Though the converse of an implication was easy to understand, the contrapositive warranted a puzzled double-take and seemed hard to remember. Upon further examination, I discovered an uncanny resemblance between implication and contrapositive to multiplying both sides of an inequality by -1. However, I doubt the validity of the aforementioned comparison.
During the Wednesday lecture on the second week, I was pleasantly surprised (tho in hindsight I should not have) when came across the phrase "Even true implications doesn't give you causality", because I have frequented examples of this statement in just about every topic of economics (a major and major interest of mine) I have come across. An economic example that immediately came to mind was the claim "Every minimum wage increase was followed by an increase in wages" though a true implication, was at times used to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that the raise in the minimum wages caused the increase in wages. Finally, the question that bugged me for a good part of the past week was the quiz question for the first tutorial. What my confusion boils down to is, do we have to indicate a true consequent when drawing a Venn diagram for a true implication? I plan to find an answer to this question from a classmate, my TA, or professor Heap midst my self-inflicted havoc in upcoming week.
Image Source: http://ipencilmovie.org/
from "I, Pencil", a film from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, adapted from the 1958 essay by Leonard E. Read.
from "I, Pencil", a film from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, adapted from the 1958 essay by Leonard E. Read.
