For any students who see this, the video is correct. This is Material Implication and it's super important. Here is the example from my text, Intro to SL by Hurley: ...the statement “If you bother me, then I’ll punch you in the nose” (B⊃P) is logically equivalent to “Either you stop bothering me or I’ll punch you in the nose” (∼BvP). It makes perfect sense with other examples too. "If we emit a lot of CO2, then we will accelerate climate change" is equivalent to "Either we stop emitting a lot of CO2, or we will accelerate climate change".
in the last part c->~c,do we need to consider whether c is true or false?whether can false create true?c(false)->~c(true)? or c(true)->~c(flase),if c is false,then (c->~c) expression is true or not?
Hello ,thanks for the explanation. But I have obe question: How do you prove that ~CV~C deducts that ~C is true by using tautology?Could you please provide any proof or hint?
It's like you say, if I had a banana I could... And then you'd get out of the assumption saying by using one of the 3 ways of getting out of an assumption (I don't remember the names rn I'm sorry)
Really appreciating your work, you might as well have saved my exam!
12:14 my professor said we aren't allowed to go from the conditional if p then q to not (p) OR q if we're just using the laws of natural deduction.
Yes, I believe that you should do it by using assumptions.
Tomáš Hauser yep this video isn’t actually correct
For any students who see this, the video is correct. This is Material Implication and it's super important. Here is the example from my text, Intro to SL by Hurley:
...the statement “If you bother me, then I’ll punch you in the nose” (B⊃P) is logically equivalent to “Either you stop bothering me or I’ll punch you in the nose” (∼BvP).
It makes perfect sense with other examples too. "If we emit a lot of CO2, then we will accelerate climate change" is equivalent to "Either we stop emitting a lot of CO2, or we will accelerate climate change".
this is literally a different language
in the last part c->~c,do we need to consider whether c is true or false?whether can false create true?c(false)->~c(true)? or c(true)->~c(flase),if c is false,then (c->~c) expression is true or not?
If we use tautology to get the value of ~C, then we can think that ~C is true,right?
hello, can someone really suggest a good book to start with?
Hello ,thanks for the explanation.
But I have obe question:
How do you prove that ~CV~C deducts that ~C is true by using tautology?Could you please provide any proof or hint?
When you have ~C, you can add another one: ~C v ~C. The same way you can take it away since the dysjunction has the same sides.
youre making a lot of this more complex
to prove a conditional start with assuming the antecedent and prove the consequent
i dont understand about assumption.
in any case, we can use it?
can someone explain to me
It's like you say, if I had a banana I could... And then you'd get out of the assumption saying by using one of the 3 ways of getting out of an assumption (I don't remember the names rn I'm sorry)
@@chexblu thanks for explication !
@@abisarwan20 Yw :3