*Statement 1: A full-time candidate for the degree may be permitted to undertake part-time work in the University subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the University.*

Let Work-at-University () be divided into full time work and part-time work such that .

Also, we classify the students () as full time students () and part-time students () where .

We wish to investigate the relation between and .

Accordingly, we interpret Statement 1 as

*Statement 2: Full time students can (only) take part-time work (in University) i.e. .*

By contrapositive,

*Statement 3: Non-part-time work (in University) can be carried out by non-full-time students i.e. .*

Since and , we say,

*Statement 4: Full-time work can be carried out by part-time students i.e. .*

Lastly, since being lecturer is full-time work in university, you can only be part-time student (postgraduate) in University.

#

Special thanks to Tan for helping me proof theory … -_- …

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

## Published by zkchong

Zan-Kai Chong | AI Content Writer | ML Builder | ML Researcher | PhD in Engineering
View all posts by zkchong

S_f \to W_p but is W_p \to S_f ? if cannot prove the latter then ur statement is not correct…

by the way, the sentence before statement 4 has typo?

You have good eyes. I think only man man will check my equations one by one. Anyway, I like it.

Yes. It is a typo and I have corrected it.

#

I lazy to prove the sentence. I was told “it is like that according to policy”. So I just follow.

lol~ policy is not to be proved, it is to be broken, muahahah!