Hand still looks huge. I get that you're going for perspective, but it's just not working. I don't see how her hand could be that close to the "camera" with her body so turned like that.
Actually it ends up looking to me more like "forearm too small" than "hand too huge". Although, I'm allowing the hand leeway since it's inside a cool tech thingie. If the tech thingie isn't supposed to add a little bit of size to the hand...
Well, most of what we're seeing is actually the skin of her hand and fingers (I think...), and that itself looks huge. It's really hard to tell what the flickerbat is going on with that hand, and yes, I do see where all the fingers are, but all the lines (rings? mechanical devices? I have no clue) confuse me.
First picture looks great, but I'll agree with Yosh on the arm being too small. The bottom of the elbow should come to just above the hip bone in that position, and even if her shoulder was scrunched up as far as she could get it, there'd still be no more than a hands width of space between pelvis and elbow. Some girth added as well, as it makes the arm look really atrophied in that position. Other than that gripe, the rest of the pic is freakin kick ass.
The last one looks nice, can't really tell what you'd be unhappy about in it, but the glass is a nice touch with it's odd curviness :D
First picture looks great, but I'll agree with Yosh on the arm being too small. The bottom of the elbow should come to just above the hip bone in that position, and even if her shoulder was scrunched up as far as she could get it, there'd still be no more than a hands width of space between pelvis and elbow. Some girth added as well, as it makes the arm look really atrophied in that position. Other than that gripe, the rest of the pic is freakin kick ass.
The last one looks nice, can't really tell what you'd be unhappy about in it, but the glass is a nice touch with it's odd curviness :D
I'm glad to see someone else giving detailed feedback, but, uh, wtf? I'm a short-waisted woman and I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much less than the space his drawing shows between elbow and hip on me. Just sitting here (that is, somewhat scrunched) and holding my arm like that it's more like the distance from my wrist to fingertip between elbow and hipbone. I might agree about the left forearm.
The second picture has a lot wrong with it, though individual parts are OK. Saber's already gotten my detailed comments, but highlights include: the left index finger is cartoony in how the first joint narrows; the left hand is oversized; the left shoulder is curved too far forward; the right elbow is too far in back of the body; the right eye is too far from the nose; the lips, while well-shaped, are at the wrong angle relative to the rest of the face. That's also the squarest nostril I've ever seen.
Saber: it's actually the norm to use P and Q rather than A and B (I've rarely seen it written using anything but P and Q at least), so mangadood was partially right.
I never understood why something as basic as that deserves such a fancy name, though. >_>
Yeah, I already told him about the P and Q thing. It shouldn't surprise you that there's a name for that kind of inference, though, any more than things like commutative or associative properties of addition. There are names for other logical constructs, such as De Morgan's Laws.
It does seem a bit strange to me that the term would come up in a geometry class, but I had symbolic logic before geometry and I think we didn't do much with proofs in the latter anyway.
Quote from mangadood:
latin-100% fancy
And yet you thought your teacher made up a "100% fancy" phrase for a basic concept in a basic class? Do you bother turning on your brain when you're in school? No wonder you're not getting much out of it.