Brandon's Weekly Learning Journal

  Week 7 & 8, The last two weeks and their modules take it up a notch with the use of first order logic. We look more closely at how to make more advanced first order logical statements using a combination of universal/existential quantifiers, and the different types of logical statements, such as conditional, “and”, “or” etc. For instance, how can we translate a complicated english statement into first order logic, given some domain, premises, and variables. How can we translate sentences with limitations, such as “There are at most two apples.”. This example can be done by saying “If you pick out an apple, and an apple, and an apple, then you will have picked out (at least) one of these apples more than once.” Which looks something like “AxAyAz[((Ax ^ Ay)) ^ Az) -> ((x = y v x = z) v y = z). So a seemingly simple statement looks very different from what you would expect in first order logic.

  Week 6, This week's module adds onto the first order logic, including how we can use them in proofs. Last week, I mentioned that we can refer to samples of a domain using “for all” and “there exists”, but how do we use this in a proof? Sure, we know if anything in a domain is a human, then it is mortal, but how do we use that to say Alice is a human, so she is mortal? This is where the new tools for proof come to play. We can use a universal instantiation, which allows us to use that statement referencing the domain and generalize it to something we can use, a symbolic term or representation of something. Kind of like saying Alice can represent some piece of that domain, thus allowing us to get to the conclusion we want. This works similarly with the existential quantifier “there exists”, but with its limitations because it's easy to say that Anything can include Alice, but it's not quite the same for something can be Alice.

  Week 5, This module introduces us to another way of writing logical statements. Instead of using propositional logic, we use first order logic. Propositional logic is good for establishing relationships between general objects, but when it comes to things more specific, like multiple named individuals, then it falls apart. That is where first order logic comes into play. Here we can establish a person as a variable, and a statement as a function. For example, we can say that “a” = Alice, and “Fx” = x is tall, thus “Fa” = Alice is tall. This allows us to make more accurate logical statements and proofs. Additionally, we can establish domains of groups. Maybe a domain can be all CSUMB students named x. We can refer to everyone in that domain as Ax, or “for all CSUMB students”, or maybe we want to refer to at least some student Ex, or “there exists some CSUMB student”.

  Week 4, This module’s material adds to what we learned about proofs with propositional logic by including the tool for indirect derivation. Similarly to the conditional statement, we make an assumption, where we show if that assumption is true, then it leads to a contradiction of a pre-established premise or known statement, which by doing so, means we have proven that the assumption is not true, and we can then use that. Additionally, we were also introduced to “if and only if” type of statements. These work similarly to a conditional statement, except that it goes both ways for the two statements/variables and not just one.

  Week 3 This module continues the material on how to conduct proofs for propositional logic statements, only this time we are introduced to two new useful tools. One being the conditional derivation, where we can make an assumption, and based on the assumption and known premises, we can conclude that something is true based on that assumption, resulting in a conditional statement “if…then…”. Additionally, we were introduced to the “or” statement, which again is also similar to the “and” statement and how we use it in computer science. An “or” statement is true if at least one of the two known variables are true.

  Week 2, This module’s material contains information about how to conduct proofs for logical statements. Proofs are meant to show that an argument is valid, similarly to how a truth table would do so. However, the more atomic statements that are included in an argument, the less reasonable it would be to determine if it is valid using a truth table as the table grows exponentially. So in these situations, it makes more sense to use a proof. Additionally, we are starting to look into not only conditional statements, but also “and” statements. This is similar in regards to how we would use an “and” statement in computer science. An “and” statement is only true if both variables are also true.

  Week 1, This is the first week of the course CST 329 Reasoning With Logic. Overall, we learn to develop skill in using logic to describe and assess arguments and write formulas to describe them, in propositional and first order logic. This first week starts off with understanding that we can break down a sentence into atomic sentences, which we can then use to describe the relationship between them in a logical form. More specifically, we looked at conditional statements. “If…then…”. We then use these sentences to describe when the whole statement is true or false. This can also be done by using a truth table, where we describe when each atomic sentence/premise/conclusion is true or false.

  Weeks 7 & 8, The last two weeks of the course were less focused on new materials but were necessary when considering the tasks required when analyzing digital design. Ultimately, after completing the prototype of the redesign, we put all of our work on the project together and explain what our design choices are and why we made them. This was a good exercise in giving a thorough explanation for each step of the design process and what makes a design professional, and this would make a good example of what to look for when analyzing the design of other media.

  Week 6, Once again, this week’s module is the continuation of the previous one, only this time it focuses on the color theory of the UX/UI. Here we added onto our project, designing the prototype of the redesign based on feedback from the high-fidelity wireframe, and including new details, such as colors, considering contrast, and how each page and button flow/interact with each other based on user input. So, the user can tap on a button, and that button will do something, such as take the user to another page.

  Week 5, This week’s module is the continuation of UX/UI fundamentals, focusing on the typography of a design. In short, what are the fonts, font size, spacing, where and how much of something is displayed, is it distracting, etc. Using this, we continued our redesign process for our chosen mobile application. Only this time we improved upon our low-fidelity wireframe based on feedback and designed a high-fidelity wireframe.

  Week 4, This week’s module we moved away from the focus on game design, but still stayed within the design for user interaction. This time, we set our gaze to redesigning an already existing mobile application of our choice. This would become part of our class project, and we start with creating a low-fidelity wireframe of how our redesign would look like. With this, we naturally took a look into some concepts about UX/UI, and how we can layout the spacing of buttons, the size, color, where certain features should be etc. My choice was to redesign the application layout of Bank of America’s mobile app.

  Week 3, This week’s module is a continuation of the material we learned last week about game design. However, this one was more focused on level design. So naturally, we experimented with the game development engine Unity and used pre-made assets to create a video game level of our own, considering the design concepts from last week. However, this time, we also have to consider how the user would interact with the level which is a part of designing, especially common with current digital mediums such as mobile applications.

  Week 2, This was an interesting week because the module’s contents focused more on principles of art and design found in video games and their menus. This was an interesting topic because normally when considering principles of art and design, we tend to look at more defined and older mediums such as magazines, advertisements, etc, but here we are looking at what can be considered a modern form of art, video games. Some key things we looked at in a game’s menu is its contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity of key elements. Using these concepts, we were able to redesign a menu from a game of our choice using photoshop.

  Week 1, The first week of the course CST 328 Digital Analysis & Design has largely to do with technology, design, and aesthetic principles. With the focus of applying fundamental concepts of art and design to a range of commercial, expressive, and entertainment forms. With the first week, the main tasks involved understanding some differences between digital file formats, how we can optimize our projects in photoshop, and the general design process. Going into more detail about the design process, there are a few key things to note. There is a competitive audit, which refers to the analysis of competitor products and how we can highlight its strengths and weaknesses to improve our own design. The next few things involve wireframes. There are low-fidelity and high-fidelity wireframes which generally give an idea of where key elements of a piece of media are located, such as where buttons and key text are located on a website.