And here’s some lisp code with parentheses you can match. The operator (or sometimes something else) goes immediately after (instead of before) its open parenthesis.

You can do color coding, arrows, or number (or letter) each open paren, then number the closed paren to match.

Ignore Discourse’s syntax highlighting which is wrong.

(defun ensure-generic-fn (message)
"Define an object-oriented dispatch function for a message,
unless it has already been defined as one."
(unless (generic-fn-p message)
(let ((fn #'(lambda (object &rest args)
(apply (get-method object message) args))))
(setf (symbol-function message) fn)
(setf (get message 'generic-fn) fn))))

(1defun ensure-generic-fn (2message2)
"Define an object-oriented dispatch function for a message,
unless it has already been defined as one."
(3unless (4generic-fn-p message4)
(5let (6(7fn #'(8lambda (9object &rest args9)
(10apply (11get-method object message11) args10)8)7)6)
(12setf (13symbol-function message13) fn12)
(14setf (15get message 'generic-fn15) fn14)5)3)1)

Thinking about it a bit more. I think it was a mix of being over-confident, tired, and in a rush to go help my brother do something that led to me being sloppy. The answer looked kind of correct and I felt like I was getting it so I just went with it since I needed to go do something.

Just because you have a right to drink, a right so smoke marijuana, a right to eat junk food, a right to stay up late, etc. doesn’t mean you should. Having the right to do bad things doesn’t mean you should do the things that are bad for you.

In a similar kind of manner, I think it’s bad that, just because you have the right to not be touched, to be bothered over the smallest touch. I’m sure there’s plenty of reasons for why someone might be bothered by someone touching them. I don’t know the typical reasons for why such things develop but from personal experiences it’s not enjoyable when someone randomly puts their hand on me when I don’t know them. I’ve never been touched inappropriately (like in an extreme manner where they touch private areas and what not), but I can understand why that may cause issues with all kinds of touch. However, to me it is a problem when an accidental bump or something causes you a lot of discomfort. I personally don’t have that but after a co-worker mentioned to me recently that they have those kinds of issues (never really with me, I’m always careful to avoid touching people) even if someone bumps into them by accident I think that’s kind of bad.

Sure she has a right to not be touched. And I do think people should try and reasonably avoid bumping into people and making accidental unwanted contact where possible. However, I think just because I think those two are true doesn’t mean that it’s in someones best interest to be jumpy over the smallest bump and tiniest touch. They should try and address those problems. I don’t think addressing underlying mental traumas and stuff is controversial. It’s just controversial to say that the problems that those traumas are causing are bad, I feel.

I’ve been more-or-less ok with writing. I’ve been pretty bad at tracking what days I’ve written on just because it’s unclear what I count towards writing or not. For the past week I’ve been just setting a timer for 15 minutes and writing on stuff that comes to mind or on random writing prompts. It’s helped clear up to me when I feel like I’ve done some writing for the day. I started tracking my writing by tagging it in my notes and by checking off on a habit tracker.

one thing you may notice here, which is very common with programming, is that you can use multiple lines and indentation to make it easier to read expressions with a lot of parentheses (and other start/end markers like {}, <>, square brackets, do/end etc). this is similar to bullet point lists which indent things that are more nested. the basic concept is more indented = more nested.

try doing a logical expression using whitespace (multiple lines and indentation) to make it easier to see what is grouped with what

Look over some mathematical logic educational materials. See if you have questions or confusions. See if there are some topics you want to learn about more now. Or consider if you’d like to move on to another topic for now.

Ok. This was a bit hard because I haven’t looked at anything since we started except for searching up unfamiliar terminology.

I’ve looked over some introductory educational materials. As far as what we’ve covered so far and some of the basic stuff I don’t think there’s any questions or confusions I have as of right now. I skimmed through some websites and stuff and I don’t know how to judge what I should be learning more of or not.

This website mentions some laws:

The distributive law on first glance seems a bit confusing to me and so does the absorption law. So I’m going to go ahead and try and understand those and then share my progress.

Are you familiar with the distributive property related to addition and multiplication? That is important and similar.

For the absorption law, you should be able to pretty quickly check whether it’s true. Other than that, I wouldn’t worry about it.

For the other laws, review them because the webpage has an error. You should find it if you check if the formulas make sense.

The basics of sets are important. That includes terminology like: set, element, subset, union, intersection, empty set, superset. You should know basic operations with sets and be able to answer basic questions like are the elements in a set ordered and can a set contain duplicates?

I’m familiar with it. Mmm. How would I explain it?

Example: 3(4 + 5) is the same as 3(4) + 3(5). The 3 can be distributed to each part of the expression in the parentheses.

For the logical operators “and” and “or”:

a&(b|c) = a & b | a & c

in english: a and (b or c) is the same as “a and b or a and c”, The a and got distributed to b or c. Hmmm. This makes sense. The expression is saying that it needs to be a and b or c. Since its b or c that works with a and. Its the same as a and b or a and c.

a|(b&c) = a|b & a|c

in english: a or (b and c) is the same as “a or b” and “a or c”. That makes sense. “a” or “b and c” have to be true is the same as “a or b” has to be true and “a or c” has to be true.

a and T = T. This is wrong. If a is false then F and T = F, if a is true then T and T = T.
a or F = F. This is wrong. If a is false then F or F = F, if a is true then T or F = T.

I think they meant to say that a and’ed with T will always output a. input a, output a . Identity.
Same for or. I think they meant to say that a or’ed with F will always output a.

Domination Law looks fine.

Idempotent Law looks fine.

Double Negation Law looks fine.

Commutative and Associative look fine.

De Morgan looks fine.

Absorption and Negation look fine.

So far as everything there is mentioned I’m familiar with sets at a basic level.

Uhh. It’s a quadratic equation. From what I remember a term has a number part and a variable part. The variable part is raised to some power. 0 and 1 are powers so 5x and 5 count as terms. A number by itself with no variable part is a constant/constant term. I don’t know if there’s any special terminology for x^2 versus x, but the first two are regular terms and the 11 is a constant.

I got this definition from the previously mentioned AOPS Pre-Algebra textbook. I didn’t look it up to answer it, but I have made flashcards (that I still review) on the vocabulary from the textbook.

Hmm. Operators? Oh yeah the part of the term thats just the number is the coefficient. So there’s the coefficient and a variable.

Uhh I think I’m confused as to what this is asking. My guess would be how are the two parts of the term, the coefficient and variable, combined to make a term. Multiplication. 8x is 8 and x multiplied together. 9x^3 is 9 multiplied with x^3.

From other terms? Operators. Uhh going off of my guess for the second question division can split up parts of a term.