Arguments Building Using Rules of Inference (Part 2)

Discrete Mathematics: Arguments Building Using Rules of Inference (Part 2)
Topics discussed:
1) How to build arguments using rules of inference in propositional logic.
2) Building a conclusion from the set of premises using rules of inference.
3) The process involved in building arguments using rules of inference.
Follow Neso Academy on Instagram: @nesoacademy(bit.ly/2XP63OE)
Follow me on Instagram: @jaspreetedu(bit.ly/2YX26E5)
Contribute: www.nesoacademy...
Memberships: bit.ly/2U7YSPI
Books: www.nesoacademy...
Website ► www.nesoacademy...
Forum ► forum.nesoacade...
Facebook ► goo.gl/Nt0PmB
Twitter ► / nesoacademy
Music:
Axol x Alex Skrindo - You [NCS Release]
#DiscreteMathematicsByNeso #DiscreteMaths #RulesOfInference

[@rajghosh217]

Ngl, I had this same question with exact words in my final exam yesterday.. easy 10 marks.. thanks NA.

[@KeshariPiyush24]

Sir you are amazing...........so much love why weren't you in my college:(

[@quadslikekunal]

~d was not given as a premise we simply assumed it . This question seems wrong.

[@learnwithme9677]

That's not a difficult one. We got ~s from the first conclusion. Then the next argument is so big. We can't directly simplify it. And there is s^d so ....if we can make ~s into s^d terms we can solve. So he did like ~s or ~d which gives ~(s^d)😇

[@mohitmehra3133]

@@learnwithme9677 but by adding or ~d didn't he unbalanced the equation??
Because in mathematics when we add value in equation at same time we subtract that value to balance the equation.
I am confused!!

[@neiljohn2637]

@@mohitmehra3133 Bro this is not algebra, this is boolean algebra so those laws don't apply here. IF A and B are True then A has the same truth value as (A ^ B)

[@devukun8358]

@@mohitmehra3133 not algebra lol , this ain't a branch of maths

[@bolong3112]

the question is correct. because of the addition rule:
from p
infer pˇq
so
from ～s
we can have ~s ˇ~d

[@advaithkumar5966]

I was wondering why we even went through the pain of applying so many logic rules because its really simple to conclude without any rules also.

[@skay9096]

How?

[@sawazalz9764]

If I wasn't wrong of course we can conclude without using rules. But computers can't. Therefore we need to build a rule for them to make a logical reasoning and hence why these rules are made.

[@sawazalz9764]

Also because in here there are only 3 premises and 1 conclusion. Say that you have around 100 premises. How would you do that? Therefore we uses computer to compute a lot of premises to come down to the valid conclusion

[@shubhrajit2117]

Coz we need to pass the exam!

[@anamnasirrollno0838]

Excellent 😊😀

[@KajalSingh_09_19]

Add recurrence relations to this playlist

[@snehanjalibehera2951]

Seriously amaing solution to clear my confusion🇮🇳🇮🇳

[@PhaniManjunath.]

Thank you neso academy ❤

[@sanji6367]

thank you so kuch

[@grutvik]

Superb learning. Gave me the concepts

[@uzairali1228]

according to modus tollens it should be (not)T wouldn't it?

[@ramyasree4986]

REALLY HELPFULL

[@md.arifulislam2339]

How the conclusion becomes "It rained"

[@continnum_radhe-radhe]

Amazing!

[@mylab188]

Sir, can we not assume R=it doesn't rain, F=it's not foggy instead of R=it rains and F=it's foggy. Please explain

[@Augustus1003]

we can assume, but our conclusion would change instead of R it would be ~R.

[@ajinkyamogre8515]

We could've even assumed R="It does not rain or it is not foggy" as one statement had the conclusion we wanted to prove not been "it rained" as there was no reference of "it rains" and "it is foggy" seperately in the argument.

[@devukun8358]

@@ajinkyamogre8515 well we need to prove our conclusion is right , ie. (it rained- ) so we took both as different statements :)
you have a valid point too , as both condition needs to be T in order to satisfy the given argument

[@dijahmasnawi6627]

Amazing!! Tq

[@luckysahu2900]

Thank you sir

[@IT_SahilNarsale]

Clears the concept

[@jjuyy]

Where does R^F = R come from? F is a statement by itself, is it not?

[@yoshidasan4780]

they are telling R^F is true ...it can be only true if both R and F are true hence R^F implies R....and the R^F is obtained from de morgan's law

[@kadavakallulokesh9310]

Wow superb sir

[@roronoazoro6186]

It's very confusing, is there any short cut to learn the laws of inference?

[@shashankmehta6969]

sir at @3:08 u said u will tell the reason why u didn't take r/f in the addition. what's the reason?

[@ZendChandra]

He did tell us. He chose D instead R/F because he needed to obtain "~(S ^ D)" to do Modus Tollens with the first premise.

[@saicharithaneelisetty1552]

Nice explaination

[@salmanmd9912]

Sir how the conclusion become rained

[@mixshots1801]

Neso academy 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@coolgadgetsshop1131]

How Make conclusion

[@loziii-dp5um]

Pls,🥲is this sequent calculus?

[@Rahulmohan-mv6nq]

nice

[@saimyousuf2108]

Awesome

[@nav-razzbhusal5049]

how it rained is the conclusion

[@SonaliDas.98]

the trophy was not awarded so..

[@grovestreet9165]

mastrpiece question

[@shagilsid]

This video is having some technical problem. It's not able to play.

[@shambhavimishra9072]

Face reveal

[@pramudyadika_]

thank you, sir