SEM122 - Predicate Logic II

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 9 вер 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 59

  • @eff700
    @eff700 10 років тому +16

    thanks for this man, u have no idea how useful it is

  • @valentinussofa4135
    @valentinussofa4135 Рік тому +1

    Sir, your channel is one of the treasures that I found in UA-cam. Thank you for your dedication to educate people all over the world. Always be healthy🙏

    • @oer-vlc
      @oer-vlc  Рік тому

      Join us on oer-vlc.de

  • @MonhicGothic
    @MonhicGothic 4 роки тому +2

    Thank you for this video and greetings from Spain!

  • @scurry44
    @scurry44 4 роки тому +1

    Du bist so ein Ehrenmann! Manchmal wünsche ich mir so ein Dozenten.

  • @nicoleslaunwhite9201
    @nicoleslaunwhite9201 7 років тому +2

    You're a lifesaver!!! Thank you so much!

  • @aileenfowler3967
    @aileenfowler3967 2 роки тому +1

    The explanation is clear.

  • @powermedia5427
    @powermedia5427 Рік тому +1

    Realy Very good ,thanks

  • @Lukomeyan
    @Lukomeyan 6 років тому +1

    Prof. Handke really loves his non-PC examples :P. Very easy to understand though :)

  • @ffhashimi
    @ffhashimi 10 років тому +1

    interesting and good representation
    thanx for sharing

  • @RealerThaanMost
    @RealerThaanMost 9 років тому +1

    amazing thank you so much my friend!!

  • @123nikap
    @123nikap 8 років тому

    Very clear and concise. Thanks.

  • @bouzidbachircherif6527
    @bouzidbachircherif6527 4 роки тому +1

    Thank you, good job

  • @abderrahmanchafiki2839
    @abderrahmanchafiki2839 4 роки тому

    Thank you. I find it very interesting.

  • @toshikalata8761
    @toshikalata8761 7 років тому +1

    superb explanation
    but can you please tell me why you put implication with Universal Quantifier and Conjunction with There exist Quantifier what is the reason?

  • @aaronsan-yuo9516
    @aaronsan-yuo9516 8 років тому +2

    great lecture

  • @yevgeniy852
    @yevgeniy852 7 років тому +1

    very helpful THANK U A LOT

  • @nadianipa9618
    @nadianipa9618 8 років тому +1

    great and useful........really.

  • @shafaaabdullah4208
    @shafaaabdullah4208 8 років тому

    thanks prof leaved your hand so usefull lecture

  • @sondosmamdouh6475
    @sondosmamdouh6475 7 років тому

    thank u , it's very clear and useful

  • @kdawit690
    @kdawit690 5 років тому

    Thanks!

  • @maximilyen
    @maximilyen 3 роки тому

    Thanks very useful

  • @markusleitgeb3283
    @markusleitgeb3283 3 роки тому

    Very good lecture.

  • @siddharthsinhthakor2309
    @siddharthsinhthakor2309 7 років тому +3

    very usefull

  • @gutwebs
    @gutwebs 6 років тому

    Very useful, Thank you.

  • @enadulshaheen7684
    @enadulshaheen7684 9 років тому

    Very clear concept

  • @DonXone
    @DonXone 6 років тому

    Great video

  • @CreativeCodeCo
    @CreativeCodeCo 6 років тому

    I've got some predicate logic problems that I have done.
    a. Each person is either a student or a staff.
    Allx(Student(x) or Staff(x))
    b. Each lecturer teaches some courses.
    Allx(Lecturer(x)-->~Courses(x))
    c. Some hard-working people are not boring.
    Somex(Hard-working(x) ^~Boring(x))
    d. Hard-working people are respectable.
    Allx(Hard-working(x) ^ respectable(x))
    e. Everyone knows some hard-working people.
    Allx(Knows(x) ~ Hard-working(x))
    Is it possible to check if I got it correct?
    Any help of correcting/confirming if these are correct would be appreciated.

  • @pandapond007
    @pandapond007 8 років тому +3

    Thank you, now I can understand Wittgensteins scribbles a bit better :D

  • @emanmansour8654
    @emanmansour8654 10 років тому

    good job >>>thanks ever so much

  • @TheTahlia1988
    @TheTahlia1988 7 років тому

    Confused re the introduction of a negative quantifier? I have only ever seen an existential and universal quantifier defined within this scope?

  • @stealthmd
    @stealthmd 11 років тому

    Thank You for a very interesting Electure! But may I ask a question.
    Is quantifier always a subject presented by the noun phrase or verb phrase? Or it can be anything logically suitable in the discussion?

  • @moonlight-ih9se
    @moonlight-ih9se 6 років тому

    Thank you!

  • @sarajoda4109
    @sarajoda4109 6 років тому

    عمو شرح المادة ممتازة

  • @NattapongPUN
    @NattapongPUN 7 років тому

    Good explain teacher

  • @syedsamiulhuda9829
    @syedsamiulhuda9829 7 років тому +1

    Sir there is also one solution exist for that case, if all girls love paul so I can write all the letters of girl in capitalize (GIRLS) order, if some girls love so girl is capitalize but s is still written in lowercase (GIRLs) which represents some but not all, and if no girl love paul so all alphabets should be in lowercase (girls)

  • @kaafa3337
    @kaafa3337 9 років тому

    extremely good

  • @norah5073
    @norah5073 8 років тому

    wow ,good job
    thanks

  • @roseu9930
    @roseu9930 6 років тому

    Thnku sho much sr..
    😊

  • @gondarethiopia3197
    @gondarethiopia3197 5 років тому

    good vidio

  • @michaelschuster4407
    @michaelschuster4407 7 років тому

    Maybe someone can clarify this for me. I'm required to take this class at my university; however, I don't see the purpose for knowing any of this. What are the real-world applications to this knowledge?

    • @littlehanzel4174
      @littlehanzel4174 7 років тому

      Predicate logic deals with how computers understand natural language. Simply ,if you tell your computer "I love pineapples" then using predicate logic , it will actually UNDERSTAND that you love pineapples. You see , predicate logic is a way to represent the MEANING of a sentence.
      So now that a computer has a way to understand basic sentences it can do various things for us. Like summarizing a huge bunch of text into a tiny paragraph(of course this is a very elaborate process which involves much more than Predicate logic). Newspaper apps on your mobile phone use the same technology.
      Then there is language translation , text / speech recognition and other things.
      To know about computational linguistics you can read a book on "Natural Language Processing". It has a very important component called semantic analysis which is involved with the actual meaning of a sentence i.e. the context of a sentence. There you will found predicate logic.
      Natural Language Processing -> Semantic Analysis -> Predicate logic

    • @michaelschuster4407
      @michaelschuster4407 7 років тому +1

      Thank you! Finally someone gave me a real answer! Not many people in my class know the actual purpose for taking it, lol. I'm a linguistics major, so I had a feeling it had to do with computational linguistics.

  • @ronaldsupenieks803
    @ronaldsupenieks803 7 років тому

    my lecturer doesn't use & for and, he uses the upside down V, so this is confusing me

    • @oer-vlc
      @oer-vlc  7 років тому +1

      The upside down V is a suitable alternative.

  • @jabergaber2911
    @jabergaber2911 7 років тому

    please step by step

  • @nuraisahnahar7942
    @nuraisahnahar7942 7 років тому

    i get to know more about quantifier, variable. but i still cannot answer few of my question. can someone help me?
    example of my question is "all students of this course are happy if they pass the mathematics exam".(university student).

    • @mahadeiv2458
      @mahadeiv2458 7 років тому

      Interpret your sentence as - If there is a person who has passed the mathematical exam, he will be happy.
      So you will have 2 predicates - 1. Passing mathematical exam (P(x)), 2. Being happy (H(x)).
      The predicate will be, For all X (P(x) ->H(x))

    • @kaypee9187
      @kaypee9187 5 років тому

      @@mahadeiv2458 There are 3 predicates 1. X is a student S(X) 2. X passes the Maths ExamP(X) and 3. X is Happy H(X).
      We can now say: For all X it holds that if X is a student and X passes the Maths exam then X is happy. The above can be put in the symbolic form as Vx[S(X).P(X)-->H(X)

  • @richardzimmermann9372
    @richardzimmermann9372 8 років тому

    There are some mistakes regarding the discussion of the negative quantifier "no" starting at about 10:23. (1) You cannot just negate a variable x. Instead, the correct predicate logic representation of "no" would be "not some x (P(x))". (2) Since there is thus an existential quantifier present, the correct connective for two properties would be conjunction "and", not implication, "then."

  • @ngcebohlongwane5997
    @ngcebohlongwane5997 7 років тому

    gud stuff

  • @warrenzingwena2075
    @warrenzingwena2075 7 років тому

    it complicates me im not understant

  • @ssonu56629
    @ssonu56629 3 роки тому

    I have some problems on predicate logic
    1). No guys likes Lisa
    2). Every student reads some book
    3). No student answers all questions.
    4). John was a liberal but Jack was a socialist.
    Anybody pls solve it and explain, I will be very thankful for this

  • @philosophyversuslogic
    @philosophyversuslogic Рік тому

    Thank you for the lecture! But must say Predicate Calculus is the mess, and it isn't worth to be studied. Firstly, it is not logical in some of it aspects: a) we assume some configuration of individuals, properties, which makes our universe be narrow; b) some rules as Universal introduction or Existential eliminations have non-logical elements in it; c) the arbitrariness which is used in some proof is completely broken. I guess (a) and (b) are not needed to be explained, not about (c), so here it is: when c is arbitrary we mean by that that, let's say, if a triangle has a sum of its angles equal to 180, then all the triangles have the same sum of their angles. What about dog named Fido? If Fido loves bones, then every such dogs as Fido loves bones. Usually we are being assured the constants cannot be used to generalize them, but it is a fault. We can do this. Does a triangle have some privileges over Fido? Nope. That's an absurd, so the Predicate Calculus.

  • @MarkAhlquist
    @MarkAhlquist 7 років тому

    'not" should be a backwards N

  • @wi33ard254
    @wi33ard254 10 місяців тому

    wagwan tumerada

  • @Myrslokstok
    @Myrslokstok 11 років тому

    No, but the linguists have stolen some concepts from math.
    Math uses predicate logic as a base for most mathematical theories, because it "conserve" truth.

  • @bouzidbachircherif6527
    @bouzidbachircherif6527 4 роки тому

    Thank you, good job